if Hz- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS I) KIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SE^P 6 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT WRIGHT, ET AL. Office Of OeseSREGATIOSJ MOJifTOR/iMS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIEFS MOTION TO CITE JOSHUA COUNSEL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT The Little Rock School District, through their counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, Jr., filed a motion on August 23, 2001. Therein, they renewed by reference an earlier motion which had been dismissed by the Court on August 17, 2001 without prejudice The crux of the LRSDs motion is that Joshua counsel, John W. Walker, violated the following ruling of the Court: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, thats true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that Regard, even though you are a public institution. The present motion certifies the Districts belief that Attorney Walker violated the courts orders... by appearing at the office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley on the morning of August 23. 12001T There is no other contention in the renewed motion for contempt. The respondents, therefore, respectfully submit that the court has not entered an order prohibiting Joshua counsel or his associates from appearing at the office of any school district official in either of the three school districts. The District submitted the affidavits of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys secretary, to support its motion. Neither addresses the issue of whether Mr. Walker violated a court order by appearing in the building. There is no question that Mr. Walker appeared at the buildin
ig- It again submitted no affidavits in support of its earlier, now renewed motion. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to address the issue of whether Mr. Walker is in contempt of court because he appeared at the Ish IRC on August 23, 2001. The issue for the future is whether he is in contempt whenever he enters upon a Little Rock School District property without the prior approval of either or both Messrs. Heller and Pendley. The Court has not entered such an Order. Accordingly, there can be no contempt upon which to base a show case order because there is no antecedent Order denying entry upon LRSD property to the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors. The relief that is being sought is inconsistent with the claimed violation, i.e. appearing at the office of a school official. The relief sought, in addition to sanctions, is that Mr. Walker be refrained from any communication with District personnel and that he be ordered to submit all requests for LRSD documents to counsel for LRSD. There is no authority for such broad relief. Nor is there a brief in support of the motion. The Court is asked to treat the other brief in the dismissed motion for contempt as its brief for this new action. That is, of course, inapposite. But however it is viewed, there is no basis in law argued for denying class counsel entry upon the very 2school premises that he is directed by the Court of Appeals, and expected by this Court, to monitor. As Judge Wollman noted in his concurring opinion in the November 14, 1991 Eighth Circuit decision vacating her honors opinion: I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their commitments to desegregation. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., 949 F2d 253, 259 (8' Cir., 1991). We submit that our presence is required both 1 to fulfill our class representative obligations and to assure that class concerns regarding implementation of the court orders will be effectively addressed. Messrs. Heller & Fendley would, and by their motion seek to, effectively limit, if not end. Joshua monitoring of the parties agreement. That is another way by which they advise the LRSD that it may be brought into compliance. In other words, keep Walker out of the schools and the case will end. They are badly mistaken. The rule of law governs rather than the identity of the litigators. Joshua counsel submit their own affidavits in order to demonstrate their actions and their respect of the Court and its Order, mindful at the same time, of what appears to be the never ending defiance of law by Little Rock School District officials. Joshua requests that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing upon the motion and thereafter dismiss it. .espectfully submitted. J^htW. Walker, P.A. 4723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 J501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do. hereby state the foregoing response has been sent to all counsel of record on this 4* day of September, 2001 via United States mail post^e prepaid. Joj W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 4 I 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CTT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOi DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. )< '^ECEiWD DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SEP S 200^ INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFHCEQF desesrkaiionwww^ INTERVENORS STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF koMke. AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER ) )ss. ) Comes the affiant, Joy C. Springer, under oath, and states the following: 1. I am employed by the law firm, John W. Walker, P. A. I direct and engage in that offices school desegregation monitoring activities regarding the three Pulaski county public school districts. 2. I have regularly visited the Ish Instructional Resource Center (IRC) at its present location since it was established as a part of the ongoing monitoring responsibility of the Joshua Intervenors. At times, I have attended meetings at the IRC both at LRSD ofBcials and at my own initiative. My meetings with IRC staff have usually been professional. J. On some of my monitoring visits, I have been accompanied by other office staff of John 1W. Walker, P.A., including Mr. Walker himself. We have all been generally welcomed, upon our meetings and visits, by LRSD officials. 4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts which occurred on August 23, 2001. On the morning of August 23, 2001, Mr. Walker and I went to the IRC office for a monitoring visit. Prior to our arrival, we discussed visiting with Ms. Joanna Harris, who is in the Little Rock Comprehensive Science and Math Achievement offices (LRCSMA), to obtain a schedule of their activities for the year and to obtain Dr. Bonnie Lesleys vitae which we had requested on August 20' and August 22"" 5. Mr. Walker and 1 rode to the IRC together. Upon arrival to the building, Mr. Walker received a telephone call and he was on the telephone when I exited the vehicle. 6. I entered the building and signed in shortly after 8:00 a.m. There was no one at the reception area. First, I decided to go into Ms. Harris offices to say hello and obtain the information that Mr. Walker and I had discussed obtaining. Ms. Harris had not come into her offices. There was no one in her offices. 7. I returned to the hall area, sat down and made some notes. I noticed Ms. Anita Gilliam exit from the offices of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and we (Ms. Gilliam and I) exchanged greetings. 8. After approximately five minutes, Mr. Walker came into the building. We went into the reception area of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys offices and were greeted by Ms. Anita Gilliam. I heard Mr. Walker inform Ms. Gilliam that we were there to pick up a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae. I heard her indicate that she placed it in the mail the previous day. Mr. Walker then said, it should be no problem for you to give us another copy of it. Ms. Gilliam, then, after a pause, gave us a copy of the vitae. 28. After a quick review of the document, Mr. Walker then asked, Is this all of it. And he further stated I am sure her vitae is more extensive than this. Ms. Gilliam left the reception room, went into Dr. Lesleys office and closed the door. While we waited for Ms. Gilliam to return, I observed Mr. Walker take copies available to the public of the standards and benchmarks for grades one through eight. 9. Ms. Gilliam came out of Dr. Lesleys office and informed us that Dr. Lesley was talking to district counsel and that she, Ms. Gilliam, would get back with us shortly. 10. As Mr. Walker was leaving the office and I remained in the office, Mr. Walker then asked Ms. Gilliam if there was any information to supplement the instructional divisions agenda items that were on the school boards agenda for that night. She did not answer. Mr. Walker then left the office. 11. Ms. Gilliam went into Dr. Lesleys office again and closed the door. I sat down and waited for a few minutes for Ms. Gilliam to come out of Dr. Lesleys office. Ms. Gilliam did not return. 12. I left the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices and joined Mr. Walker who was in the hallway. We took our usual course for monitoring and circled the building. 13. While we were on the math and science hallway, I saw Ms. Gilliam come over to the hall as if she was watching what we were doing. It appeared that she had come over to follow us around the building. I have not previously observed her follow us around the building during previous visits to the IRC. 14. I returned to reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices about ten minutes later at which time Ms. Gilliam told me that the agenda was all the information that was available. I did not Jask to speak with Dr. Lesley. However, Dr. Lesley came out of her office and volunteered that she may have copies of the grant proposals and that I may already have them too. She looked at a piece of paper and said they are not on the list of documents that we have provided you and I will get them for you later. I then asked her to let me understand what she was saying. She repeated it and I wrote it down. No other information was requested of Dr. Lesley by me. 15. Mr. Walker was not in the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices at the time that Dr. Lesley volunteered the information regarding the grant proposals. He was still in the hallways of the building. 16. When I left the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices, I met Mr. Walker in the hallway and we went into the LRCPMSA offices again to see if Ms. Harris had arrived. Upon learning that Ms. Harris was not there, we began to leave the office. As were leaving the office, Ms. Gilliam came into the office and asked if she could help us. Mr. Walker said no, and that if he needed help he would ask for it. He then offered to show her the items which he had in his hands which he obtained from the districts display tables and the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices. 17. Except for speaking to people, Mr. Walker initiated no further conversation with anyone in Dr. Lesleys offices or the IRC. As we exited the building, Mr. Walker asked me who the lady was coming into the building. I told him I thought it was Ms. Dillingham. He spoke to her and asked if she was Ms. Dillingham and she said no. We then left the premises of the IRC. 18. With respect to the events which occurred on August 16, 2001 at the offices of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, I am also familiar with the facts surrounding that encounter. 19. When we arrived at Ms. Elstons offices on August 16, 2001, there was no secretary 4in her reception area. In early June, 2001, when I visited Ms. Elstons offices, there was no secretary present in her outer offices. 20. I was the first person to walk into Ms. Elstons office and as I did so, I said hello in order to gain the attention of Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts. 21. Asi entered the office of Ms. Elston, Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts were seated at a table at the back of her office. As I entered the office, both Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence got up from the table and greeted me and they subsequently greeted Mr. Walker and >! Ms. Caldwell who came into Ms. Elstons office behind me. Mr. Walker, Ms. Frances Caldwell and I were invited into the offices of Ms. Elston after I got Ms. Elstons attention with my hello. 22. After exchanging greetings, Ms. Elston exited the room and returned with several chairs in order for Mr. Walker, Ms. Caldwell and myself to be seated. 23. Mr. Walker immediately indicated to Dr. Roberts that he was required to go through District attorneys in order to ask questions of District administrators. Mr. Walker indicated to Dr. Roberts his concerns regarding African American student enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) courses and that he (Dr. Roberts) should inquire of District officials including Ms. Elston regarding American African enrollment, recruitment, success and failure in AP courses. Mr. Walker asked Dr. Roberts to specifically inquire regarding the African American student failure rates in AP courses as a result of current district initiatives. Mr. Walker did not tell Dr. Roberts that all African American students in AP courses were flunking. 24. Mr. Walker did not ask Ms. Elston any questions. She volunteered information as Mr. Walker told Dr. Roberts what his concerns were regarding African American student 5participation in AP courses. 2^ On Saturday, June 30, 2001, while on my way to lunch with Mr. Walker, I phoned Mr. James Washington on my cellular telephone, as I have routinely telephoned him on numerous occasions at home, to advise him that it looks like we would not be having a cook-out at my house anytime soon because I would be working weekends as a result of Mr. Walker having filed objections to rhe Districts motion for declaration of unitary status. Mr. Washington had previously suggested that I invite liim over for a cook-out at my house one weekend. I also told >) him that we could not discuss the case with him without going through district counsel. Mr. Walker asked me to allow him to say hello to Mr. Washington, I handed him the telephone and he did so. I heard him tell Mr. Washington that he was not to discuss matters involving the case without going through district attorneys. I did not hear what was being said by Mr. Washington. In addition, I did not hear Mr. Walker suggest to Mr. Washington that he testify that he feared for his job, if called to testify. 26. I have no personal knowledge regarding the allegations involving Dr. Don Stewart. I have prepared and read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. li / 'Y C. SPRINGER SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before mele day of August, PUBLIC lOl. MY CO^MMlSSION EXPIRES: ! jsaoooiii),. 6 i %1 4 1 \ I FILED /--! r'r-A i SEP 0't 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASIES W. McCORMACK, CJ WESTERN DIVISION H
:. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF y. NO. 4
82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. J!' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. g^ECEIVED DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF SEP - 6 2C01 INTERVENORS OBI 13 INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER ) )ss. ) Comes affiant, John W. Walker, under oath, and states the following: 1. On August 23, 2001 at approximately 5:55 p.m., I received a copy of Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt wherein the LRSD sought to have me cited for contempt and renewed its earlier motion to have me cited for contempt. It did not, however, seek a show cause order. Despite there being no show cause order entered by the Court or sought by plaintiff, I respectfully request the Court to set this matter for evidentiary hearing and I submit the following statements as if there is an Order entered by the Court to show cause why I should not be cited for contempt. 2. The August 23, 2001 motion relates to events of that day and is supported by two -1-J. 4. 5. affidavits, one from Ms. Anita GilEam and the other from her supervisor, Dr. Bonnie Lesley. The first motion, though renewed, is still without affidavit or evidentiary support. I wish to reply, however, under oath and do so as follows: On August 20, 2001,1 wrote Mr. Clay Pendley , Friday, Eldredge & Clark and the co-counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, also of that firm, at least three letters and I spoke with ' Mr. Pendley at least on one occasion for approximately twenty minutes. I attempted to call him a second time but was informed that he was unavailable for my call. The first letter. Exhibit A, addressed the issue of our request for information from school principals and I note that we offered twenty additional days to respond to that FOIA. I also note that I wrote in that letter with respect to district officials whom we sought information from that if we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form [without depositions] or ... by interrogatories. I received no response to this letter from Mr. Fendley. I then wrote Mr. Fendley requesting, a copy of Dr. [Bonnie] Lesleys vitae noting that I was addressing this request to her as well. See Exhibit B. At approximately 2:25 p.m., I informed Mr. Fendley that I would seek to obtain a copy of the 2001 budget document from the district, for possible use at the school board meeting on August 23, 2001, and I noted if you determine that I am not entitled to this information. would you kindly inform me . . Mr. Fendley did not respond to this letter either. See Exhibit C. Not having heard from Mr. Fendley or Dr. Lesley on August 22, 2001, I wrote Dr. Lesley a two sentence letter. Exhibit D. I asked would you please provide me a -2-copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. Mr. Pendley was copied with the letter. I did not receive the requested fax response on August 22, 2001 from either Mr. Pendley or Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Neither of them interposed an objection to my obtaining the information. 6. On the morning of August 23, 2001, shortly after 8
00 a.m., I and Joshua Intervenor Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, went to the Instructional Resource Center IRC located 9 at 30* and Pulaski Streets in Little Rock. We discussed obtaining information from Ms. Vanessa Cleavers office and obtaining a copy of the vitae of Dr. Bonnie Lesley. I followed Ms. Springer into the IRC building by approximately five minutes. When I entered the building, Ms. Springer was seated in the hallway in front of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys office. We both went into the outer office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and I spoke with Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys secretary. The only conversation that took place in that office at that time concerned my request for a copy of the requested vitae. I did not see (lay eyes on) nor talk (exchange words with), Dr. Bonnie Lesley that morning. Ms. Gilliam informed me that Ms. Gilliam had mailed Dr. Lesleys resume to me the day before. Her two page resume is attached as Exhibit E. Upon seeing that it was only two pages and that it only cited her educational background and work experience, I asked Ms. Gilliam if she had another one that was more comprehensive. My request for Dr. Lesleys vitae was made in order for me to be able to review some of her writings. I had no other way of being informed of her ideas regarding remediation which were being reflected in the policies she was submitting to the LRSD Board for approval. Her resume appeared to be different from those of other -j-) 7. 8. 9. 10. professional employees. Her e-mails reflected that she has written extensively and has had other experiences which equip her to be Director of Instruction. The resume that I was given did not appear to meet the District standards. Ms. Gilliam did not engage in any substantive conversation with me at that time or at any time. I did not seek any information from Ms. Gilliam other than the resume of Dr. Lesley and any documentation that Dr. Lesley intended to present to the school board later that evening. Ms. Gilliam did not respond to me or in my presence to this request. I received on August 22, 2001 an agenda from the LRSD for the next days board meeting. On the agenda there were several pohcy proposals from Dr. Lesley: IVA with five pages of an administrative regulation IVA-R
proposed revision to administrative regulation IKEC-R3
Credit by Examination with five additional pages
program evaluation agenda for 2001 -2002, three pages
weighted credit for university studies courses at Hall High School, two pages
proposed revision to administrative regulation IKC-R: Grade Point Average and Rank in Class, six pages
and, a grant proposal - Teaching United States History, one page. While I was in the office, I asked Ms. Gilham if there was any additional information which was available which supported the enumerated items being submitted by the Instructional Division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda that day. I never received a response from Ms. Gilliam to my question. Before I left Ms. Gilliams office, I picked up copies addressed to parents and guardians of standards benchmarks for grades 1-8. I left Ms. Gilliams office and walked down the hallways of the IRC. There were pubhc pass outs on the tables -4-11. 12. 13. 14. which involved the districts schedule, the LRSDs Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement, the PRAXIS Series Tests at a Glance for approximately fourteen different programs, and several communications to parents. Dr. Lesley has given an afhdavit in support of the districts motion to cite me for contempt. Dr. Lesley indicates that she spoke with me personally. I make this determination because she speaks in terms of a they said which includes me. In paragraph four of her affidavit, she appears to indicate that I had a conversation with her. It is clear, however, from a full reading of her afSdavit, that she neither spoke with me nor laid eyes upon me on the morning of August 23, 2001. I state that I never saw or spoke with Dr. Lesley on August 23, 2001. The most that can be said of my activity in Dr. Lesleys office was that upon being informed that the requested vitae had been mailed the day before, I asked Anita for another copy of what had allegedly been mailed
that upon being provided the copy. I asked if it was a complete copy
and I asked if there any other writings that supported the departments agenda items on the school board agenda of 6:00 p.m. that day I could have. When I returned to my office I wrote Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Monitor, a letter complaining about the districts response and asking her help: 1 am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the LRSD is fully responsive to citizens requests for information. If the district will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks to the districts general inclination. Exhibit F. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Lesley and to Mr. Chris Heller. After the school board meeting on the evening of August 23,2001, it appears that Dr. -5-Lesley updated her vitae. Her letter dated August 23, 2001, Exhibit G, begins as follows: You came to the ISH IRC on August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you on Wednesday. It appears that the letter dated August 23, 2001, was written after that date. Today, August 27, 2001, I received Exhibit F in original form from Dr. Lesley. She now indicates that she has updated her curriculum vitae to a point where it is now 27 pages J n long and that in order for me to get it, I will have to pay the district $6.75. With respect to the proposals that were for discussion on the board agenda for August 23"'*, she has informed me that to review the document and get a copy of it would cost $11.00
for the Technology Challenged Grant Proposal, $4.50. I may then obtain the documents, apparently without going through Mr. Heller and Mr. Fendley by bringing a check for $22.25 to Ms. Gilliam. 15. 16. In Dr. Lesleys letter of August 23as well as in her affidavit. Dr. Lesley does not indicate that I spoke, or sought to speak, with her personally. She acknowledges that I only sought to obtain a document that was or could have been readily available on request to anyone, of which prior notice that I was seeking it was given to her counsel. On August 17, 2001, the Court denied LRSDs motion without prejudice to cite me for contempt. During the telephone conference, the Court indicated that it would be prudent to, and in fact, ordered me to go through, or at least tell the attorneys what [I was] doing. This would prevent misconstruction of my conduct. The Courts Order which was received by me in the morning mail on August 23"* is -6-) 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. slightly different from what was spoken during the telephone conference. The Court s Order which was intended to. clarify her previous Order . . . directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the LRSD when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case and to inform counsel for the LRSD prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters that are not currently before the Court. Exhibit A reflects that if we sought opinions from the district administrators we would do that by interviews or by interrogatories. Exhibit B indicates that I informed and went through Mr. Pendley in order to obtain information from Dr. Lesley, i.e., her vitae. Exhibit C reflects that I went through Mr. Fendley on August 20, 2001, in order to obtain a budget document which was on the August 23, 2001 agenda. Exhibit D reflects that, after informing and upon not receiving a response from Mr. Fendley on the third day, I requested from Dr. Lesley a copy of her vitae by return fax. Mr. Fendley interposed no objection to this request. She did not reply. When it was not received by return fax as requested on August 22, 2001,1 simply stopped by the LRC to pick it up. Nothing else happened other than that I requested from Anita Gilliam any information that her office had to support the policies to be presented in the public forum later that night and that Ms. Springer and I made a routine monitoring visit of the IRC. For years, the school district has taken the position that it has provided us, in advance of school board meetings, the proposed policies or regulations and back-up information before they were presented to the school board. Dr. Lesley and Dr. -1-J, 22. 23. Carnine have previously indicated that it was their belief and purpose that I should have, and that the district would provide such information to me at least several weeks, before the proposals were presented to the school board for action. The districts counsel were aware of this commitment. Moreover, the districts counsel were aware that I intended to appear at the school board meeting on the evening on August 23"*. See Exhibit H. I wrote Mr. Heller that day, August 23, 2001, asking if he perceived the Courts Order as restricting any discussion between me and the board members later that day. See Exhibit H. The LRSD filed a motion on August 16, 2001 seeking to cite me for contempt. It now renews that motion. In doing so, the district has failed to provide either affidavit of other evidentiaiy support of the allegations in the motion. The renewal of the motion does not make it legally sufficient to put me on notice of what it is that I am specifically charged with having done. I proceed, however, to respond by this affidavit to those allegations under penalty of perjury. There are three allegations stated in the first motion. I address them seriatim: a) To the allegation that I confronted Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston with allegations that all African American students in advanced placement (AP) courses were flunking, I deny that allegation. Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant recommended by the Joshua Intervenors, was in a meeting Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston at approximately 11:30 a.m.. August 16,2001. I was scheduled to meet with him during the day. I had previously written him and informed him that I would like to be involved in your meetings with Dr. Washington and Dr. Lesley. See Exhibit 1. I was unable to meet with him -8-during his meetings with either of those persons. When I caught up with him he was at Ms. Elstons office. Ms. Elston invited me and Ms. Springer into the office. A law clerk named Francis Caldwell, who accompanied us to the meeting, was also invited in. During the meeting, I informed Dr. Roberts that I was not to elicit information from any district officials and then I proceeded to tell him some of the concerns that we had regarding the treatment of African American students that I wished for him to address with Ms. Elston and the other administrators as he sought to work with the school district. My conversations were primarily expressions of concern to Dr. Roberts regarding his role in relating to school administrators. I did discuss with him the treatment of African American students not only in advanced placement but in the district as well. At no time did Ms. Elston indicated that I interrupted any meeting and she appeared to welcome my discussions with Dr. Roberts. Ms. Elston and I have been personal friends since college, and we are neighbors. Dr. Roberts has provided a written statement regarding the alleged events. See Exhibit J. (The signed copy from Dr. Roberts is being submitted to the Court). b) To the allegation that I called Mr. James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman on\ June 30, 2001, and suggested that Washington testify that he feared for his job if he told the truth, I deny having done that. Mr. Washington did not testify at the Court hearing that he feared for his job if he told the truth. MT. Washington, however, has visited my office on scores of occasions in response to complaints that we have directed to him in his role as Ombudsperson. During several of those meetings he complained about his treatment by the district and that he did not feel that he had the -9-) 24. 25. full support of Mr. Junious Babbs in the execution of his job duties. At court, as I recall his testimony, he confirmed that lack of full support. He indicated .shortcoming.^ with respect to his office space, staff and limitations upon his investigations, especially about complaints that emanated from Pulaski Heights Middle School. Mr. Washington, I believe, says different things to different people at different times depending upon his view of the advantage to be obtained by such expressions. c) To the allegation that on July 19, 2001 I attempted to intimidate Dr. Don Stewart by walking into a closed door meeting in his office, I deny that. I am not certain of where Dr. Don Stewarts office is located. I went into a room where he and Mr. Junious Babbs were present, which may have been his office, exchanged a few pleasantries and left. I do not recall either of us being seated. Absolutely nothing took place where I sought to obtain infonnation^ verbal or written, from a school district ofiBcial. I further suggest that any intimidation or intended intimidation of Dr. Don Stewart is impossible due, if for no other reason, to Dr. Stewarts high degree of self-confidence to say the least. I do not believe that he will testify, under oath, by recitation of any factual scenario, that I have ever sought to intimidate him. With respect to both motions for contempt, I deny that I either have contempt for the Court or have acted in a manner contemptuous of any Court Order, Court Directive or Code of Professional Conduct. The contrary is true. The district acknowledges that as counsel for Joshua, I have a duty to engage in monitoring activity regarding class activity. The motion for contempt, I believe, is an -10-attempt to frustrate our monitoring. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. jo: W. WALKER SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me ^ay of , 2001. MY co: :SSION EXPIRES: NotaSypublic -11- cout<^ i i i ) ) 0 I J 1 John W. Walker, P.a. ArroENBYAr Law 1723 Broadway Little Eock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAI,KF,B. SHAWN CHILDS August 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OF COUNSEL EGBERT McHENRY, PjL DONNA J. McHenry . 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLiiet ) Dear Clay: In that you have taken ten days, and in that the information that I am seeking is readily accessible, you may have 20 additional days to respond to the FOIA involving the principals. I will agree to a protective order regarding personal student information provided by FREPA. In that the LRSDs motion to be declared unitary is not a trial on the merits of the case, and in that no discovery schedule has been approved by the court, I can not agree to the procedure you suggest. There are several reasons for this. The most compelling reason, however, is that the information 1 request has routinely been provided upon request in the past
and that we have not requested to use the FOIA in the past for these purposes. We now use the FOIA to make sure that the district is clear about what we need and to give the district officials time to obtain it without interference with their jobs. You lawyers interrupted the process when you decided you wanted to scrutinize each request that came from us. To us, that means that you not only want to review the matter but to structure the response as well. Clay, the documents we requested to review need not be examined first by you if they are public documents. We dont even need to copy many of them. We are entitled to see them even if the purpose is unrelated to your motion. You make things more difScuit and then try to blame us for having done so. ( With respect to the federal rules, we will request that you make available witnesses without depositions. If we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form or either by interrogatories. !ry truly yours, i ihn Walker JWW
lp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRE PA. DONNA J. MoHENRY 8210 Henderson Road LrrrtE Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchem7d@swbell.11et August 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Fendley: I intend to request a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae and am informing you of same. If you have it, would you be kind enough to forward it to me. In that I dont imagine that you do, and it should not be a controversial matter at all, I am forwarding this request to her as well. Sincerely, I W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Ms. Ann Marshall John W, Walker. P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 BEOADWAy Little Rocs, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL EOBERT McHENEY, PA. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email
mchenrydl^wbelLiiet August 20, 2001 Kir. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Clay: It is now 2:25 p.m.. August 20, 2001. I intend to appear or having someone appear on my behalf at the school district to request a copy of the 2001 budget document which the district has prepared. We have been provided these copies in the past but have not been provided one this time. Perhaps it is an oversight. I have tried to call you by telephone in the last few minutes after having spoken to you for about 20 minutes on another matter and I am informed that you are unavailable for my call. If you determine that I am not entitled to this information, would you kindly inform me whether this information is otherwise available to the public. Siaeerely, D^ri Walker A JWW:lp John w. Wiker, P.A. ATTOENBYArLAW 1723 Broadway Lotle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAZ (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS August 22, 2001 OF COUNSEL EOBEST McHENEY, EA. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HEioiBssoN Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email
mohenryd^wbelLnet Dr. Bonnie Lesley Little Rock School District 81^0 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dr. Lesley
Will you please provide me a copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. Walker nVW:lp cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. Ann Marshall f > Resume Bonnie Alexander Lesley Home Address: 232 Trelon Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-3920 Office Address: 3001 S. Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Home Telephone: 501/868-4289 Office Telephone: 501/324-2131 Home E-mail: baleslev@aol.com Office E-mail: balesIe@irc.lrsdLkl2.ar.tis Educational Background Ed. D., Aug. 1989 to- Baylor University, Waco, Texas 54 Graduate Hours University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas M.A. mEngEsh, Aug. 1968 West Texas A&M University, Canyon, Texas B.A: in English, June 1962 With Honors University of North Texas, Denton, Texas High School Diploma, Valedictorian, May 1959 Hedley High School, Hedley, Texas Work Experience June 1998Present Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School Distric Little Rode, Arkansas Dec. 1995March 1998 Associate Superintendent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Kansas City, Kansas June 1993Dec. 1995 Associate State Superintendent for Curiiculum/Standards Delaware Department of Public Instruction Dover, Delaware Oct. 1991June 1993 Associate Superintendent for Curriculum/Instruction Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas June 1986Oct. 1991 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Waco Independent School District Waco, Texas iAug. 19S1June 1986 Director of Secondary Education Ysleta independent School District El Paso, Texas ). Aug. 1979Aug. 1981 Fall 1965Spring 1979 J Fall 1964Spring 1965 Fall 1962Spring 1964. Supervisor of Secondary Language Arts Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Teacher of Enghsh and Creative Writing Eastwood High School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Reading and Elementary Spanish Teacher Scotsdale Elementary School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas English, Mathematics, Reading, Spanish Teacher Silverton Independent School District S Everton, TexasJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 23 , 2001 OF COUNSEL aOBEET McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Liitle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425 Fas (501) 372-3428 Ematt: mchenryd^-wbelLjiei: Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall
As you know, I have been seeking information from the Little Rock School District. You also know it is my behef that the District does not provide full or accurate information, at least to us, upon request. We have some substantial evidence of that already. Yesterday, I requested a copy of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys resume or vitae. You received a copy of my request. She provided a resume, a copy of which is attached. The resume is three pages. The resume is an example of an attitude: give them something, anything will do
but dont give them all of what we-have. Dr. Lesley surely provided to the Little Rock School District a far more extensive resume that she provided in response to our request. Perhaps, you have seen it. Surely, the Board of Directors had more than what she provided to us. I am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the Little Rock School District is fully responsive to citizens requests for information. If the District will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks to the Districts general inclination. Sincerely, /^nn W. Walkdf JWW
js Attachment cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mr. Chris Heller An Individual Approach to a World of IPdiowledge August 23, 2001 MB 27 an Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 h Dear Mr. Walker: I You came to the Ish IRC on Thursday morning. August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you on Wednesday. She provided that to you. Then you and Ms. Springer requested copies of the grant proposals that were referenced in the Board agenda book for the August 23 meeting. I told Ms, Springer that we can provide those but that I dont have copies in my office and would have to get them from others. Then you told Ms. Gilliam that the resume I had provided was not adequate, that you wanted a more complete one, with lists of my writings. I asked her to tell you that I would have to update what I had, but that I would be happy to provide that, although it will be very long. I stopped what I was doing this morning and spent the necessary time to update the full curriculum vitae that you apparently want. I also secured from the other offices copies of the United States History grant proposal and the Technology Challenge grant proposal. The curriculum vitae is 27 pages long, so the cost for that document is $6.75. The United States History grant proposal is 44 pages, so the cost for that document is $11.00. The Technology Challenge grant proposal is 18 pages, so that cost will be $4.50. That is a total of $22.25. If you will bring a check made payable to the LRSD for that amount to Ms. Gilliam, she will provide you with the copies of the documents that you have requested. YojleFs Connie A. Lesley, cd. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg cc: Chris Heller Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.Irsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fes
501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Ltttle Book, Arkansas 72206 Tkt,EPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS August 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, PjL DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendbsson Road Little Rock, xArkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fas (501) 372-3428 Email
mchenryd^wbelLnet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Heller
Do you perceive the Judges Order as requiring me to inform you that I intend to have a discussion with the board members today during the board meeting. Please let me hear from you by return fax. ySi^cerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc
Ms. Arm Marshall 1 /OHN WALKER, PA. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadway Litde Rod:, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSXnSSION COVER^ SHEET Tax: Re: Sender: To: YOU SHOULD RECEIVT [ (induding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), EXCLUDING _ THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT FECETVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEAEE CALL ''<(501)S74-3758> The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for tire use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Tarsnee J. Roberts, PhD. P.O. Bos 96- Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 August 17, 2001 Mr. John Cia^' Fendley Friday, SIdredgs & Clark ) 2000 Regions Center ''i :<aP.-cirif .AA"R 72201 Mr. John W, Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Fendiej' and Mr. Walker: It was brought to my itlentioh this momiug by John Walker that a mos: tica to eke Mr. Jolin WaOsef ip contempT of court was made by Mr. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. ?y^_ w^ijrwr p?i>Vtdcd ulC With thfi iiiOuOu, J apl addrSSSing thS facts in paragraph 2 of the motion i i I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Mr. W'sikw -asri twtj ijf iliil iSSGClixLcS wcr 1X1 VilCU into her ofSces. Mr. Walker did not barge into Ms. islstons oiSoe. Mr. Waik-er cognizsnt of .-4 Lerexcre, he addressed his ststeiiiniits to ixi ord^A to Ci^'xfy heipg discussed between Ms. ilston and mysi t:? j i Please coxitact me if addxtii Sincerely, LiXLVXXXXCXtXV.^^ i I I Terrence J. Roberts, PlhD 'J I Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (I922-I994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S- URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR-. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P-A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P-A. JOSEPH B HURST. JR.. P-A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P-A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A HARRY A. LICHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P-A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON I. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E- KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P- MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B S CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndlyfc.nt September 21, 2001 received ( ria Facsimile & Mail) Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court SEP 24 2G01 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 QffICEOr ^^SESHEGATIONnOfilHQ RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.
Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.
Katherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Request for Expedited Hearing. This motion concerns discovery propounded by Plaintiff to the Joshua Intervenors. Joshua has advised that they will not respond absent a Motion to Compel. We respectfully request that this matter be set for an expedited hearing at the courts earliest convenience. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones W. 'JWs. Richard Roachell s. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Sammye Taylor F:\HOME\BBrown\Fendley\LRSD\wright lt.wpd IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: 1. received SEP 24 20C1 Q55ICE> PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with written discovery by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua has failed and refused to respond. 2. Plaintiff contacted Joshua concerning responses and was advised to file a motion to compel. 3. A copy of the written discovery served on Joshua is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status on or before October 1, 2001
that an expedited hearing be held on this Motion at the Court's earliest convenience
that Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein
and that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: yCnnstopher Heller (#81083^1 ZJohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on September 21, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Or Cnristopher Heller I' tj' Uohn C. Jr. Fendley, F \HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 2001\dcs-mot-coiiipel wpd 38'9-0! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS tr (A) "you" or "your' Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf
(B) "person" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm. association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities. II (C) "communicate" or "communication Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise
II (D) "document' EXHIBITShall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control
and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, "document" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the term "control" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was. but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why
(E) "identify tt (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address(es), occupation, job title
and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business
(ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such 2The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial disparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD
(c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) (b) (c) When you became aware of the incident
''Yhen you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD
Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 6INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents involving student discipline which you referred to the LRSD Ombudsman
and separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman
(c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. 7INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the "Program Evaluation Agenda" and/or the "Assessment Plan" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention
(b) state when you determined that they did not comply
and, (c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply
8(d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. rNTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please oroduce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your participation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37$=2^H------------. BT Cfiristopher Heller 1083
John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on August 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F HOMF FES'DLEY LRSD OOr.des-unilan ini-rfp-Joshua-OOI wpd 10 iristopher Heller IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Joshua has failed and refused to respond to Plaintiffs diseovery requests served by mail on August 9, 2001. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5) authorizes the party submitting interrogatories to move for an order compelling responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) where the party to whom interrogatories were submitted fails to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) prohibits the party to whom interrogatories were submitted from responding to a motion to compel by raising objections to the interrogatories. It provides, "Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown." (emphasis supplied). Similarly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) authorizes a party submitting requests for production to move for an order compelling production under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status on or before October 1, 2001Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY
/ Christopher Heller (#8108 w (./John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92IK) Fendley, (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on September 21,2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher ihn C. Fendley, Jr. Heller '/j dlev, F
\HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 200l\des-inol-compel-bn wpd 3RECESVED SEP 2 4 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO.4
82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOSHUAS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS 6/^' /.' bra.r~, r fNTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who pailicipated in the preparation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is aware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you dming the tenn of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons performed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1-Joy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of yom monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors counsel, in response to and at the request of Superintendent Les Caimne and District counsel Chris Heller, in an effort to be cooperative with them did not publish any monitoring reports of the concenis which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written commimications from Heller, Camine and Walker - Court Exhibits 558 and 566. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD & term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4
Please see Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agreement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar' loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carmine, District cormsei Chris Heller, Jrmious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that contain correspondence and other documentation from Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2-Superintendent Canijne and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementaiy School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segregation of boys from girls as a punitive measure
double funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools
the proposed closing of Mitchell Elementaiy school
the closing of Ish School under the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish bistmctional Resource Center
Pulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate tieatment of African American students and staff, disparate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial sluis and racial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and discriminatory learning environment
Hall High School involving discriminatory learning environment, dispai ate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement
Cloverdale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment. dispar ate discipline and lack of academic achievement
the creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson
discriminatory practices involving the removal of the principal at J. A. Fair High School
the promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatory conduct toward African American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)
Mabelvale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment, disparate discipline and lack academic achievement
Dunbar Middle School involving disparate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and detennination of discipline decisions. assault of student by staff member, use of racial slurs by staff and lack of academic -3- achievement
Forest Heights Middle School involving dispaiate discipline, discriminatory discipline practices
Wakefield Elementary involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminatoiy learning environment
Forest Park Elementary involving discriminatory learning environment, discriminatoiy practices regarding the participation in field tiip activities, racial comments by members of the PTA
Meadowcliff Elementary involving dispaiate discipline
Western Hills Elementaiy involving retaliatory treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of lEPs and education of African American students
Rockefeller Elementary involving disparate discipline of students and staff
Horace Maim involving discriminatory grading practices. discriminatory discipline rules established at the school level, disparate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member
Centr'al High School involving discriminatory practices in student participation in extr acunicular- activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock court, student council, disparate discipline practices. one race AP classes and favoring white students in these classes, lack of academic achievement and favoring white students irr awards and activities
Parkview involving discriminatory practices in counseling services, disparate discipline, discriminatory practices in student participation in extracunicular activities (band and choir). discriminatory teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement
McClellan involving unequal facilities, staff, leanring evironment, resources, and staff use of racial epitaphs
several incidents of discriminatory assigrrment practices
numerous incidents of the Districts failme to properly implement lEPs of African American students
and Safety -4-and Secmity Director Bobby Jones staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncoinpllance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2
Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 4. Documents are located in files entitled John W. Walker m the offices of Junious Babbs, Superintendent Camine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Waslungton. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from District officials. Superintendent Camine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to cormsei for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Coml Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbss letter of August 31, 2001, Coml Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the fomrat or content of LRSDs -5-Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6: There were no communications between the parties regarding the foimat or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. District officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the foimat or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPONSE NO. 3: Refer to response given in InteiTOgatoiy Answer No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the foimat or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. ANSWER NO. 7: There were no communications between the parties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed Maich 15, 2000. RESPONSE NO. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6- disparities revealed by your monitoring during the tenn of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Desegregation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pmsuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 8: Please refer to the Joshuas Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. Also see InteiTOgatoiy Response No. 4. District officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to share the quarterly reports which were produced by the School Services division of the District. These reports were indicative of the racial dispaiities that remained present in the District. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Camine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshuas counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Camine and Heller regarding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the Distiict did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD -7-Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Supeiintendent Cainine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshuas right to contest in a vigorous manner the Districts release from court jurisdiction after the Districts report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number of times Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents periaining to your response to the preceding Intenogatory regarding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5
Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 8. Also see Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8-ANSWER NO. 9
Joshua received notice of nrunerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory No. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Superintendent Caimne with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Coml Exhibit 567. There were numerous racial incidents dming this period including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fan High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Mann, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Caiver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementary schools. Many of these cases were referred to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to InteiTogatoiy Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6
See the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Court Exhibits 567, 568 and attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9-ANSWER NO. 10
LRSD did not adopt specific compliance standaids for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standard at particular schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSDs failme hr this regard diminishes Joshuas ability to segregate instances of racial disparity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline reports. Fmtheimore, it is our opinion that when Aftican American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quarterly reports which confirm the continued disparity were withheld by Districts officials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding urterTogatory. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in InteiTogatory No. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe all incidents involving student discipline which you referxed to the LRSD Ombudsman
and separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident
(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman
(c) Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegr'egation and Education Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10-ANSWER NO. 11: Joshua handled a number of the cases involving student discipline dm'ing this period for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman, James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based misti'eatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were refen'ed to the Districts Ombudsman: 1) Millai'd Russey at Forest Heights Middle School
2) Alex ONeal at Forest Heights Middle School
3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School
4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School
5) Earnest Rump at Soutliwest Middle School
6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodriquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School
8) Maicus Walker at Horace Maim Middle School
9) Maim Middle Schools rules regarding participation in extracurricular activities which-are driven by citizenship grades
10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student, Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher
11) Christopher Mmray at Cloverdale Middle School
12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary
13) Ewin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary
-11-14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann
15) Marcus Henry at Pulaski Heights Middle
16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School
17) Cedi'ic Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School
19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementaiy
20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith
21) Felicia Duhail at Western Hills Elementary
22) Brian Gray at Horace Mann
23) April Hayes at Paikview
24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementaiy
25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle
26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School
27) Peel at Forest Heights
28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School
29) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann
30) ClC program implementation (suspensions expunged for white students but not for black students who participated in this program)
and 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom- communicahons with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. Referrals were made during these communications. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support yom objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 12
The program, policies and procedm'es identified in the Compliance Plan and the March 2000 and 2001 reports ai^in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regaid to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshuas Response m Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 9: See InteiTogatoiy No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Coml Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- suppoil your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding mtenngatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Inteirogatoiy No. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Coml Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and docmnents which support yom- objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on particpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Com! to assess compliance. The LRSDs Maich 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 11: Please produce all documents m the preceding interTogatory. RESPQNSENQ. 11: Same as Interrogatory No. 14. -14-INTERRQGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and docmnents which support yoiu- objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001.(Testimony regarding his lack of sufficient resomces and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents hr the preceding interrogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Inteirogatoiy No, 15, INTERROGATORY NO, 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2,5,4 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan, ANSWER NO, 16: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Court to assess compliance. The LRSDs March 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that these cases are referred to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents, (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District replied indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15-preceding inteiTogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in InteiTogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the Program Evaluation Agenda and/or the Assessment Plan set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSDs obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegi'egation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting yorrr contention
(b) state when you determined that they did not comply
(c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply
and. (d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Sectiorr 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2.7.1 was to reach all academic programs implemented pru-suant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshuas ability to respond to this interrogatory is hindered by the Districts failure to set forth one clear list of all of the programs implemented to comply with Section 2.7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cmriculum at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAIPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, -16-Bonnie Lesley and Superintendent Camine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See transcript of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe m detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: DisPict officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve cormsei for Joshua hr the development of programs, policies and procedmes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedmes proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegr egation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsels complaints regarding non involvement hr the development of programs, policies and procedmes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertairring to your pmticipation on LRSD committees or hr LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following documents and notices were sent by the -17-District without request: District officials provided Board policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quarterly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Bhacial Committee meetings. Notices regar'ding Charter School Committee and agenda. Joshua cormsei and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a part of our ongoing monitoring activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pru'suant to 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see Comt Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua further reserves the right to supplement tire answers provided herein. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 fF-ax) / By: 7 alker, AR Bar No. 64046 -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailedpostage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this Xl day o-f- It
2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 in Walker -19-FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTEUR.SN. DDIISSTTRRIICCTT CAORUKRATN SAS SEP 25 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * ** ** ** ** * JAMEI By:_ DEP CLERK No. 4
82CV00866 SWW received SEP 2 6 2001 CGHGEOf OE9E68EBSOMOIVITOHiNS ORDER On September 21, 2001, the Little Rock School District filed a motion to compel and request for expedited hearing concerning written discovery served on the Joshua Intervenors. By fax dated September 24, 2001, attached to this Order, counsel for the Little Rock School District has informed the Court that the motion and request for hearing are now moot. THEREFORE, the motion to compel and request for expedited hearing are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001 CHIEF JU UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITPHH RRUIALEE 58 AAND/OR 79(a) FRCa ON BY. 4505 I (l eastern FI^ED S.DISTRICTCnii IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 26 2001 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By:___M SMnfWnl ERI DEPCLERI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDTYNTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SEP 2 8 2001 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS vs. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Before the Court IS Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John Walker. A hearing on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 9:00 a..m. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no later than October 5, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than noon on October 12, 2001. The Court advises counsel that it will not be available to conduct this hearing beyond October 16, 2001. IT IS SO ORDERED this i^2/^^^*^^day of September, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON Chief United States District Judge DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' Wl onJ ,ND/OR 79(^)FR BY__ FRCP n 3 Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A JOB D. BELL. P.A JAMBS BUTTRY, P.. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR B. DAVIS. JR.. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM lU. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKLIPF NISBET. JR. P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR P.A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P., CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAPER P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN lU. P.A MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL ITT, P.A KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayflrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL waUAM WADDELL. JR.. P.A. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT 3. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAJHES C. BAKER JR. P.A HARRY A LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A GUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A DAVID D. WILSON. P.A TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-895-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. GRAP. P.A CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A JOHN C FENDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGUO. P.A R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR P.A TONY L. WILCOX, P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A BETTY J. DBMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIPFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDER8 R COLEMAN WBSTBROOR JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A IPRAH JAYT. TAYLOR Martin KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS aOBBRT T. SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN $. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OP COUNSU. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A AO. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 970-762-2918 September 27, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendly^f>c.n*t Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE
LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: We have received and reviewed your responses to our First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. We find your responses inadequate and respectfully request that you immediately supplement your responses as follows: Interrogatory No. 2: Please provide the name and address of your class representatives. Interrogatory No. 3: Please provide addresses for the monitors identified. Interrogatory No. 4: Your reference to the files of LRSD personnel is nonresponsive. You then identify but fail to describe in detail areas of alleged noncompliance or bad faith implementation. Please describe in detail each allegation. Request for Production No. 2: Please identify the correspondence with. Junious Babbs, Dr. Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, James Washington and "other central office administrators" to which you refer. Your assertion that "[cjopies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District" is not true if you mean by you. We may have these files, but we have no way of know to what letters within these files upon which you rely. b/t SMr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 2 InterrogatorvNo. 5: Neither Dr. Camine nor Mr. Babbs acknowledged that the Comphance Plan was not provided to you until Mr. Babbs letter of August 25,2001. In fact, Mr. Babbs' letter states, "Y ou will find no revision in it comparable to the copy of the draft that was mailed to your attention prior to board submission and adoption." Do you deny receiving a draft of the Comphance Plan prior to submission to the Board? Do you deny receiving a copy of the June 10, 1999, version of the Comphance Plan on July 1, 1999? Interrogatory No. 6: As we read your response, your answer ro rhis interrogatory is "no." Please let us know if our imderstanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not Limited to preparation of the Comphance Plan. InterrogatorvNo. 7: As we read your response, your answer to this interrogatory is "no." Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not limited to preparation of the Interim Compliance Report. Interrogatory No. 8: You reference your objections to LRSD being granted unitary status. From what we can decipher from your objections, you refer to disparities in the areas of discipline, achievement and special education. For these three areas and any others revealed by monitoring, please state (a) when you became aware of the disparity
(b) when you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD
and (c) whether's LRSD's response to the racial disparity comphed with the Revised Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. As to the "notes and files" of LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested tn Request for Production No. 5. Interrogatory No. 9: Please describe in detail the alleged incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of disciphne. To the extent you reference correspondence with LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested in Request for Production No. 6. Interrogatory No. 10: As LRSD understands your response, you answer to this interrogatory is that you do not know. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Interrogatory No. 11: Please state whether's LRSD's response to each incident referred to the Ombudsman complied with the Revised Plan
and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising comphance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. Request for Production No. 8: You indicate we should refer to the files of the Ombudsman. We would hke to be sure that his file is complete by comparing it to your file. Accordingly, please identify and/or provide copies of all correspondence between you and the Ombudsman.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 3 Interrogatory No. 12: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5 was to implement programs, pohcies and/or procedures to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. The District's discipline pohcies and procedures are outlined very clearly in the Students' Rights and Responsibihties Handbooks for each grade level. Do you contend that these were inadequate
and if so, please identify ah facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 9. Interrogatory No. 13: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.1 was to strictly adhere to the pohcies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so
and if so, please identify all facrs and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 10. Interrogatory No. 14: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obligation under Section 2.5.2 was to purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades. Do you contend that the District failed to do so
and if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 11. Interrogatory No. 16: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.4 requires LRSD to work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so
and if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 13. Interrogatory No. 17: You state your position but fail to identify and describe in detail the facts and documents supporting your position
please do so and provide copies of any documents as requested in Request for Production No. 14. Please also identify the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, Bonnie Lesley and Dr. Leshe Carnine which you believe supports your position. Interrogatory No. 18: As we understand your response, your answer to this interrogatory is "none." Please let us know if our understanding is not correct. Request for Production No. 16: Please provide copies of all documents responsive to this request.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 4 Due to the Court's deadline of November 1, 2001, we respectfully request that the above information and documents be provided on or before October 5,2001. If we have not reached some agreement by that date, we will file a motion to compel on October 8,2001. We agree to reimburse you for the cost of copying the documents requested. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Fendley, cc: Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 COPY JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL SOBEST McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ. .McHENRY 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 F. (501) 372-3428 Email
mchemyd^wbeil-nec September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school district in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we will have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your "interrogatories" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the timePage Two September 20, 2001 of your motion to support your motion. Accordingly, you should soon be prepared to inform me of any additional information which you have developed since March 15, 2001, when your time at bat comes. JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall Sincerely, J91^n W. Wl <77 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OPY Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, EA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Lhtle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 F.aX (501) 372-3428 Email: niciieiir7di:^wbeil.4iet September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, .Xrkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school district in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we will have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your "interrogatories" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the time izich'ibi't &LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTR-ATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective: July 16, 2001 continued Process for Obtaining Infornnation through the FOIA Any citizen of the State of Arkansas may request records open under the Arkansas FOIA from the LRSDs custodian of the record. The request may be made in person or by telephone, mail, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic means provided by the custodian. To facilitate the retrieval of the records, the request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort. The requester should indicate whether or not he/she wants to inspect the records or receive copies of the records. The LRSD will copy the requested records when the requester wants copies and it is reasonable for the District to make the copies. In an effort to be responsive to the public and avoid accounting procedures that are not cost effective, the District will not charge for the first 25 pages that it copies for a citizen unless the total number of copies exceeds 25 in one calendar month. If it requires more than 25 pages of copies to meet a single request for information, or if a citizen makes additional requests for information within the month which would require more than 25 total pages of copies, the District will charge the requester 25 cents for each copy including the first 25 pages. Additionally, the District will charge the requester the actual costs of mailing or transmitting the record by facsimile or other electronic means. Special requests for electronic information will be handled as follows: 1. The District may agree to summarize, compile, or tailor electronic data in a particular manner or medium and may agree to provide the data in an electronic format to which it is not readily convertible. 2. Where the cost and time involved in complying with the requests are relatively minimal, the District may agree to provide the data as requested. If the custodian agrees to a request, the District will charge the requester the actual, verifiable costs of personnel time exceeding two (2) hours 3. 4. 5. associated with the tasks, in addition to copying costs. The charge for personnel time shall not exceed the salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the discretion of the District, has the necessary skill and training to respond to the request. The District will provide an itemized breakdown of charges-for expenses incurred.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective
July 16, 2001 continued If the estimated fee exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the District will require the requester to pay the fee in advance. Requests must be made during normal business hours. Any requests received by facsimile or other means after regular business hours will be considered received at the start of the next business day. If the information is in active use or storage at the time of the request, reasonable time will be established for the custodian to comply. The custodian will set a time, date, and place within three days at which time the records will be made available. To the extent practicable the custodian will do this in consultation with the person requesting the record for the convenience of both parties. If the person requesting the information does not come at the appointed time, the records may be returned to active use or storage. In the event that the requester is seeking information regarding a third party, the custodian of the records will within 24 hours make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person about whom the information is being sought. If personal contact cannot be made within the 24 hours, an overnight letter shall be sent to the last known address of the subject of the request. The District may also seek an Attorney Generals opinion about the release of the records. If an Attorney Generals opinion is sought, the records will not be released before the Attorney General has issued his/her opinion.ua/21/ui tKi 14:52 FAA DRAFT UUJ little rock school district administrative DIRECTIVE
EGAD Effective: October 1,2001 the use and deletion of electronic mail pi ol'telecommunications throughout istrict recognizes that employees will shift inrormation. and contact others. As staff members
community, their use of new tools electronic mail and telecommunicatii to the performance of tasks the electronic work place, the the ways they share ideas, transmit are connected to the global employees will learn to _jons tools and apply them m appropriate wavs associated with their positions and assignments. The District encourages staff to make i and contact others in the e'dricational world oectronic communication svstems exnariila tha use of telecommunications to explore systems expedite the sharing of effective practices and lessons across the District and help staff of practice by forming partnerships with others world. stay on the leading edge across the nation and around the Purpose The specific purposes of this directive are: To ensure that the District's electronic mail system, is used appropriately 0 ensure that the District's electronic mail syste.m works efficiently
and 0 ensure an orderly and efficient process for the ree^nn^hio and purging of extraneous mail. process for the reasonable timely Inappropriate Use Xorte" '^haviors are inappropriate and are not pemitted on the District A. B. C, Sharing confidential information on students or employees because messages are not entirely secure
Sending or displaying offensive u, uispiaying onensive messages or pictures
ssisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to D. E. elections and business
any ballot proposition including union Using obscene, harassing, or insulting language
Engaging in practices that threaten the r. may introduce a virus)
Violating copyright laws
network (e.g., loading files thatOTTSTTUT PKi i4:s3 rAl DRAFT Iffl UU4 G. H. I. J. Using others' passwords
Trespassing in others'folders, documents, or files- Employing the network for commercial purposes
or Promoting, supporting or celebrating religion or religious institutions. Hev.i.ew of Files and Communication-:
The Distnct's computer network is the property and responsibilitv of the I non As such network edministratom may review files and cSXniXtons Network administrators will report inappropriate behaviors to the emblovee's supervisor who will take appropriate disciplinary action Any other inannrnnri3+o ..:_i_x
__ . . /-ktiy uiiier I Idle uiin.,ipiinary action Anv other renort-
nf e-mail system and/or disciplinary action. may result in a loss of access to the Storing and Deletion of Electronic Messages and Files receive an extremely large volume of e-mail every day. Storage of e-maii in the Microsoft Outlook software has impact on the efficiency of the system. If a great negative or me system. If users want to save files kept in 1 1 Items," they must be approoriateiv personal folders or folders in , they must be appropriately stored in one of the other computer programs or drives. n will sX^ri 4 * rfft? administrators from the Microsoft Outlook software fifteen (15) days after it was sent or received^ Any mail or files sS-I h"eX4^X"= 5) 9ays or longer will be lost to the user ano will oe irretrievable. '"'"9 -ntil October 1, 2001 to allow all users ample time to clean and file any e-mail that they wish to save to folders. the^'richeroT^'^^^'^-^ folders to save e-iiidii. they snouio rererti f ft Jh/r. ? ^^site for steo-by-step directions DeoartmenV'^^^''^ needed, please contact the LRSD Information Services ucpdi Li ileni. e-mail, they should refer toFriday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEl *lUAV<(vx2.|<*4i wtuuAM H. SUTTON. P A nviOH M. EISCMAN. JR. P A JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A FREOeRiCX S. URSERY. P.A. ^SCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. VMBS C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS F. LEGGETT. PA. JOHN OeWEY WATSON. P.A. TAUL a, RENHAM III. P.A. Larry w.auftKS. r.A. A. WYCKJ.JFFNISaET.JIL. P.A. Jambs Eowaro harius. .^.x J. rruuLtP maLCOKL P.a, JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES XL SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPKERO RUSSELL Hl. P.A. DONALD H. SACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS UAXTER. P.a. HARRY E. COFUN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAY1.0a. h.*. jOSnrii u. HURST. JR.. P.A. eulZABSTH ROBKN MURKav. P.a. CKRJSTQPKEK HELUS*. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBCHr S. SHAPER. P.A. WILUAM M. CaiFFtN JU. P.A .M1CHa81,S. MOORE. P.A QIANS $. MACKEY, P.A. Walter jh, sbel iil p.a. JUiVlH A. CXASS. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT UAW A UIMITEO LIAeiUlTY PARTNERSHir www.rrldaynrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WESTCAP1TOL wiLUAM WAOQSLU. /X., f.. LITTLE ROCX. ARKANSAS 72201-3433 JEFFREY M. MOORE. P A. OAVIO H CRAP. P.A. CAIU.A GUNNELS SCAINHOUR. f.A. JOHN C PCNOLdr. JR . .*.A. JONANN EUZABETH CUNlCLlO. P.A. R. CHRXSTOPHER LAWSON. P a. GREGORY O. TAYLOR. P.A lOSS^H r MCKAV AiF.YANOlU A. UV r. TAYUJt IFRAH TONY WILCOX. r.A. SCOTT J. LaHCasteil f.a. .M. CaTLS CORLEY. P.A. ROEERT V, OBACH. JR.. P.A. J. use uhOWN. P.A. JAMBS C aAKCR. JR.. P.A. Marry a. ljoht, SCQTT H. TUCKER. P.A. OUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRIGS C. GAXONCX r.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A OAVtO o. WILSON. r.A, telephone 501-378-2011 PAX 501-376-2147 3125 NORTH FUTRALL ONIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 727a3-|11 TCLSFMONE 501-405-2011 FAX 501.405-2147 nUN C HICKMAN. r.A. EETTYJ. OCMOKY. r.A, LYNOA M. JOHNSON. f.A. JAMES W. SMITH. r.A. CUFTOXO W. FLUNXUTT. T A. OANtEL L. liEXMNCTON. F.a. .MARVIN L. CHILOQU X. COLZMAN weSTAROOIL JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLZN M. OWENS JASON . HENOREH ftftucz a. noweLL MICHaSL S. KARNEY XRU.V MURPHY MCQUEEN MaXTIN a. kUkSTEN aXYAN W. OUKE losvrnc Kicwoi.s MOAEAT T, SMITH *rAH A. qowmak TIMOTHY c. EZELL T MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halsext Sarah m. cotton fHlLlF a. -MONTCOMEXY taiJTEN J. UCGINS alan g. aavAN 20B NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAa 72316 TELEPHONE aro.7B2>zaa PAX a70.Ta2.2S18 I'lF in'iUNdCL 8.S. CUXRX WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JK H.T. LARZaUlXC. P.A JOHNC. ECHOLS. P A, A IX. .wCalIJSTSR September 12, 2001 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL iai-37Q.332S FAX tonUlayOlwc.nat ( Via Facsimile/l^'Iail) Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Walker
We are in receipt of your letter dated September 12,20(Jk We agree that our communication on this issue should be in wnting. Accordingly, please provide us a written proposal for a Protective Order. We will not make any e-mails responsive to your FOIA requests to principals available for your review until we reach an agreement on a Protective Order, Sincerely, JOO JCF/bgb P:\HOM8\0 BrDwntFenOlcjMJLSC^wwker Itwpd John C. Fendley, Jr. iwriurxcLr:. l_MU) r irxi'l bll SEP 'Ml 11:56 DI THE UNITED 5IAES DISTRICT com EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL, INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REVISED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED TO SEPT. LES CARNINE Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Request for Admissions Propounded to Superintendent Les Gamine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School Districts compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1 You did not establish a committee of staff members to regularly meet with the Joshua Intervenors in order to discuss compliance issues. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: You represented to the public, Little Rock School District Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors that the commitments of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan had been met. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: You did not ask the Arkansas Department of Education to assist the Little Rock School District in meeting its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan between March, 1998 and March, 2001. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: There is no writing from you which reflects i II ^*4X0 I wrii_i\crc. UMU) f IKri fell HMJ/U4 SEP 28 01 11:56 at you requested the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the Little Rock School Districts compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller requested the Arkansas Department of Education to forgive the Little Rock School Districts indebtedness to the Arkansas Department of Education of the 20 million dollar loan. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented to the Department of Education Director, Ray Simon, that the Joshua Intervenors approved the Districts efforts to obtain loan forgiveness. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented during the negotiations with Arkansas Department of Education on loan forgiveness that you and counsel Heller were authorized to represent the interest of the Joshua Intervenors. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: The subject of loan forgiveness was inappropriate for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to address in an executive session under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: The Little Rock School District Board of Directors never passed a motion or resolution regarding the Districts requested loan forgiveness to Arkansas Department of Education. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Neither you nor the Little Rock School District Board of Directors ever determined in a public meeting of the Board that the remediation of achievement disparities as contemplated by the original Settlement Decree and the rulings of the Court of Appeals was impossible to achieve. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: The Ombudsperson did not have any role in the development of policies, programs or procedures wilh respect to the Revised Desegregationwriurxcr. UHW riKI'l bll Ha4ZU4 btH iib 'W1 ll:b7 and Education Plan. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501)374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax' By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a^py of the foregoing has been counsel of record, on this of September, 2001. MUtd acuveiTed to the following Mr. M. Samuel Jones, HI Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr, Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon & Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Joi . Walker i_HW r iKfl fall Hk)l/W4 bhH 28 'UI 11:56 J^OHN W. WALKER, PA. Attorn^ at Lok 1723 Broadwe^ Little RjocE-Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET ''Date-. To: 'Pax: 2,'JI-OIOD Pz: Sender: YO U SHO ULD RECEIVE ] (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL "<(501) 374-3758>"^- The infotmaiion contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of the individual or entity name
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.