Hickman was principal at Little Rock Central High from 1990-1993.
~ fii (ki '/i^/ ^/Jlvi. 1^ piiic6ti^ Myhill' ' -------CMit-- bin^ c^Uk^-h, . MW/ f?i ywtttzt bxcM oi bdiu Uaiiw^ ^llr- Wiwj vVl/((^\^ lA^ / IH tlZ/Vl^A' 4^ v^ R t^orAzzc^ C (UT^i ^JtUTW v^lufrcM^ -1^ V?^ l^l^^H^t\j5nA)UL JI mrfW C/UlnJri^ Z^Wi iAfl4sj 1^ fWkz P jYc W^ W'. -|HcHh W^j^jW(W fen Cltp)Ub>^ C^'fM/kttXV U jMiw >v2z 7)^6z -. i^Mfwf' "A Wz / . QaLl. hoA -fc bwkbt-^ It^ (ixW^ ICje- -- <^Tx/1C4<H^^ ^yv d "M>^kW fyyi4W^(0L(k^^^^ |W wHj 9^o|b (Ahj ijj^i TVtf" l/lW I 'hl/^(l ternt- tP Mi{^ ndu 6/ni'hMuii lA^ )W i/C dowwc^ - ^lAhgO [Ua^ it^ b()}Aiyhf 4/^ )toz^ pAAA (^dju^ b 7^ ^1) 1^/ ! 4)4" 7^ 1^ jj 77 IWl^iMii^U^i fMt, dl 1MM' 'h iji'y'yfiMi ^ciiiA 71 M mH' i^i(_ (t (UuAni^ !^l^^d)-M mH d, Md (d ^-shii^d' S/Hu^ Id^ pmftd - M|ii({ tC Pol - kjb^) lift (iLWhwvjWl IL t^OVit 4mi^ Ik M<( dWK lA^ CM^- feWW i^-i (MtA rn vl fWou ifl7 p^wi^sL1^ Mi '(iM lATiidd -hiic^ CfT^d^^hfx^ 14/VW-[^ZV<. lU^ iA^^CjAc^A.<^ (f^h^ 1: I
____L__ i: iD p(/n^ ,1- bi/ dWHrv iltl Oa/^i ^on^cuz/f-^ 6^wc- , 'n -p) h he (iu^^ved^iImv^ /- Mjij' Qkiu'KJL, -ji 1-^ Zw bdl'/dd^ ii}nd- ~ di'lti -ff d>fd -- l^p(iiu'^< - di) ^'idtpt jW utisd^ -'^acUj', L /- Ia^m'^/hJ}^ k/ d/iw^ ft /^A by/i j^l / 1^ L * .y^ j'^nh hd (dM A/ZWWz 1/^ 1^^WlM k iwd/d- Mp _ (41^ /le^-Mfl^ ^UvitwWi^ '^' b bz,tzl'Z>vKzd \)kI fSi-ltJ^ id^ - Z^^X44AI^ /IZ^-flAK^/'^^/r^ /CiXA-tM^j -ft Mii4fllMt<^ aJI ^fiiti/u h^OM^wTn^ nwM)it(MWM/5w ^<<, L - m^uMbii/fCpt^- Wi^fP&ct^ ---jr 1 r^^^- pt sm nJlw f We4. 0M/4{^i4i^. \ , fyt^ dI /^jyUZ-^ -- wv, di/itni'dr"fcUitu l/^i{''\dd- li/tvJ 'fiWK ffl ClfMillJ^ d' ft4)(tt 4M!i^ Q)i-^ dWwd!" Igx^ i'^ lolzz -Hid wulW A5f
|pwi W4 piwAupdkz'pMl/J , Ctt^tv j!) lA^ri/^Z/W^ ' wwDW/rtn'viriM O' m hi cjMdhr^ ' (^<1^ I [4 'h' c/1^ ^.^l IflMt l/t^izir^ki bl'J M dliOWWlfWlt^V 4^1/1 kMl^iMl di)awMMth/|i*vY(pf^ 1^ QamI CcMii^i^ <W ^T'W " (nvMv jk fin C(mvk4 M ^|lu>*i(Vv inhmv^^ /,ia. 6 <1fi^X/yi> U^nxl/s cbh^ { -kBpnf 0) put FILED 7. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS e.. Ji- district court eastern district ARKANSAS 5 1995 JOHN HICKMAN V. EASTERN DIVISION PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. CLOYDE MAC BERND, Superintendent, Little Rock School District
JANET BERNARD, Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate, Little Rock School District
The Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District: JOHN MOORE, KATHERINE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MITCHELL, O.G. JACOVELLI, DORSEY JACKSON, WILLIE HAMILTON, PATRICIA GEE, and JOHN ) RIGGS, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Directors Little Rock School District
"JOHNDOE(S), II and "JOHN ) ) ) ) ROE(S)", unknown employee(s) or agent(s)) of the Little Rock School District. CARL R. ME^S, CLERK By: r OEP. CLERK LSC-93-088 7 ) ) DEFENDANTS) COMPLAINT AND APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1. This is a Complaint at Law seeking damages together with declaratory and injunctive relief to redress deprivation of civil rights protected by federal law and the United States Constitution. Damages, together with declaratory and injunctive relief. are sought against all Little Rock School District Defendants, agents or employees, severally and individually. JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to Title 28 United States Code Sections 1331 and 1343(1)(2)(3) and (4), in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution and the Federal Civil Rights Acts of 1861, 1866, 1870, 1871, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988. Jurisdiction is also invoked in conjunction with the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 and 2202. Plaintiff further invokes the jurisdiction of the Court to consider claims arising under the Laws of the State of Arkansas. PARTIES 3. The Plaintiff, John Hickman, is a African American citizen of the United States and a resident of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. He is employed by the Little Rock School District as the principal of Little Rock Central High School. In that capacity he is a teacher under the laws of the State of Arkansas and is entitled to certain U.S. Constitutional due process rights that evolve from the states recognition of his status as a teacher. 4. Defendant Dr. Cloyde Mac Bernd is the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District. He is charged with the duty to make recommendations of termination to the Defendant Little Rock School District's Board of Directors pursuant to the laws of Arkansas, particularly the law setting out the due process rights afforded to teachers under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, as amended. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1501 et sea. (1987 and Cumm. Supp. 1991) (hereafter, "ATFDA") and Little Rock School District Policies, Regulations and Procedures for Termination and providing hearings (LRSD EPS Code GDP) . Dr. Cloyde Mac Bernd is sued individually and in his official capacity as the superintendent of the Little Rock School District. 25. Defendant Janet Bernard is the Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate. She is sued in her individual and official capacity. 6. Defendants John Moore, Katherine Mitchell, O. G. Jacovelli, Dorsey Jackson, Willie Hamilton, Patricia Gee, and John Riggs are the members of the board of directors of the Little Rock School District. They are charged by state law to provide the due process hearings granted by the ATFDA - with all of the requisite criteria of fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the Superintendent's recommendations regarding teacher dismissals. Each director is sued individually and in their official capacities as members of the board of directors of the Little Rock School District. 7. Defendant(s) "John Doe(s)," is (are) any and all unknown employee(s) or agent(s) of the Little Rock School District who had access to any documents or information regarding Dr. Cloyde Mac Bernd's recommendation to the board of Little Rock School District's directors to terminate Plaintiff John Hickman and who disseminated that information to the press. (S)He is (are) sued individually for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. 8. Defendant(s) "John Roe(s)," is (are) any and all unknown employee(s) or agent(s) of the Little Rock School District who may gain access to any documents or information regarding Dr. Cloyde Mac Bernd's recommendation to the board of Little Rock School District's directors to terminate Plaintiff John Hickman. (S)He is (are) sued individually for injunctive relief only. 3FACT ALLEGATIONS 9. On information and belief, Defendants Bernd and Bernard began building a case for the termination of plaintiff as principal of Central High School shortly after their employment. 10. In October and November of 1992, on information and belief. Defendants Bernard and Bernd began making adverse comments regarding plaintiff to school patrons based upon hearsay information which they had received from sources adverse to plaintiff. 11. On information and belief. Defendant O.G. Jacovelli has been an active opponent of the administration of plaintiff at Central High School for some time. Plaintiff believes that she is a motivating factor in the district's decision to suspend plaintiff with a recommendation of termination. Her reasons for taking this course of action are unknown to plaintiff, but based upon her other actions in this district. plaintiff believes that they may be racially motivated. 12. On or about December 29, 1992, Janet Bernard harassed and intimidated Plaintiff Hickman by threatening him with turning over the information obtained in the "investigation" to the prosecuting attorney for a criminal prosecution if he did not resign. She also stated that she or other district officials had already spoken to Prosecuting Attorney Mark Stodola about the results of her "investigation" of plaintiff and that Stodola agreed not to prosecute or pursue the matter further if Hickman would simply resign. Defendant Bernard never shared the purported investigation 4facts with Plaintiff other than to report some general conclusions which she had personally reached. This quid pro quo threat was made without giving plaintiff the opportunity to know what the specific charges were or by whom they were made. It was made in an attempt to indirectly prevent him from excercising his right to due process and thus violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. 13. On information and belief. Bernard's threat and intimidation were made with the knowledge, support and the urging of defendant Bernd with the purpose of indirectly depriving Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law to have a due process hearing on these allegations in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985, the AFTDA and the school district's own written rules. 14. When Plaintiff refused to resign, defendants Bernard and Bernd, upon apparent authority of the school directors, proceeded to turn over their "investigation" information to the prosecuting attorney and/or the Little Rock Police Department as threatened. This criminal investigation was initiated in bad faith by the school district defendants for purposes of retaliating against plaintiff for his appparent intention to assert his constitutional right to a due process hearing on his suspension and termination recommendation in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985. 15. On information and belief, Heller knew or should have known that when Mr. Hickman rejected the intimidation that to turn over the information to the police was in furtherance of the violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985. He neglected to prevent this continued action, or participated in it, in violation of either 42 5U.S.C. 1985 or 1986. 16. On January 7, 1992 Defendant Bernd wrote a letter addressed to plaintiff advising Mr. Hickman that he was being immediately suspended and that "he ha[d] reason to believe cause exists for [Hickman's] termination." State law apparently will allow the board to terminate plaintiff at any hearing on the charges which were the basis of the immediate suspension. The letter then states the reasons for the suspension. This suspension and notice is essentially a recommendation for termination although it is stated to be only a suspension. Defendant Bernd's letter was publicized in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and by the local radio and TV media on or about January 9, 1993. Plaintiff did not actually receive the registered mail notice from Bernd until January 23, 1993. The contents of the notice were privileged. On information and belief, Dr. Bernd either provided the information to the news media or he failed to take precautions to prevent the information from becoming a public issue. Plaintiff therefore alleges that in causing or allowing the circulation of the "notice", Defendant Bernd and/or his agents or employees took action. or failed to take action, which had adverse reputation damage to plaintiff. Bernd and Bernard proceeded to communicate these same facts to the staff and students of Central High School in various ways. One way was the summary ejection of Hickman from Central High School
another was the removal of Hickman's name from the school as principal. The intent was to convey the belief that Hickman had engaged in criminal or other nefarious conduct heinous 6in nature. 17. When it became clear that the defendants did not have adequate information or a sufficient basis for their recommendation herein, and that their proof was weak, defendants Bernd and Bernard carried out Bernard's threat and enlisted or sought to enlist the assistance of Prosecuting Attorney, Mark Stodola and the Little Rock Police Department for the purpose of investigating rumors and allegations which they had received from unidentified sources involving plaintiff. Again, the Defendants did not discuss or present these rumors or allegations to plaintiff before they made them public or before presenting them to Stodola and police authorities. By involving the police authorities, defendants knew or should have known that personnel information would become public information because police reports are not privileged. On information and belief, the police authorities have cooperated with the defendants in attempting to build a case against plaintiff to the effect that he violated Arkansas criminal laws in some respects. It is the expectation of the school defendants. on information and belief, that the prosecutor will at least charge plaintiff with criminal conduct and thereby allow the district to use said charge as a separate basis for termination. After almost two months, and after an extensive prosecutorial investigation and rampant publicity generated by Bernd and Bernard, no charges have been filed. 18. The Little Rock School District has a policy and long standing practice that personnel matters or privileged and may not 7be discussed or publicized except in executive sessions or closed meetings, without the consent of the employee affected. The district violated its own policy in this respect breaching its contract with plaintiff, violating the ATFDA, and denying plaintiff the procedural due process afforded to other employees in violation the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S, Constitution. 19. Defendant Bernd gave notice to the Board of Directors of the^school district, defendants herein, of the recommendation for termination and notice of suspension at about the same time that he mailed same by certified mail to plaintiff. This date was January 7, 1993. On information and belief. Defendant Bernd also included in the school board information packet that Bernd delivered to the school board members, scurrilous leaflet which adversely reflected upon plaintiff's reputation. That leaflet was a intentionally included for prejudicial reasons and to allow the inference that there were additional charges of a similar nature to those being lodged by him against plaintiff that the board members should take into account on their own motion. 20. The actions set forth in Paragraph 23, supra. were premature and in violation of school district policy which states
Hearings will be conducted in accordance with the standards set in the "Public School Employee Fair Hearing Act." Additionally, any employee entitled to hearing before the Board of Directors may schedule a hearing before the Superintendent or his/her designee to review the charges and evidence prior to the time the Superintendent makes his/her recommendation to the Board of Directors. This hearing should be requested within ten (10) days of receipt of the written a 821. notice and does not affect the time limit required for requesting a hearing before the Board of Directors, emphasis]. [Underlining added for Plaintiff sought to obtain such a hearing as provided by the policy set forth in Paragraph 6, supra. even though literal compliance therewith was impossible. He did so through a letter dated Februairy 1 which was transmitted by fax and by a telephone call from plaintiff's counsel to Chris Heller on February 1, 1993. To date, the district has refused to afford plaintiff an opportunity for review of the evidence in support of the recommendation of Defendant Janet Bernard by Defendant Bernd or his designee. All school district employees who have been recommended for termination or suspended have been provided an opportunity to confront the evidence proffered against them prior to notice being given to the press, i.e., the public. or to the school board members themselves. 22. Defendants have directly or indirectly refused to allow plaintiff to communicate with witnesses on whose information they have relied and have thus frustrated plaintiff's ability to prepare a defense. Moreover, defendants have failed or refused to provide names of witneses who have made statements, either accusatory or exculpatory. By seeking to shield witnesses and information from plaintiff, defendants deny plaintiff due process under federal law and by their own procedures. 23. On information and belief. the school directors have received information of a select, prejudicial nature from patrons of the school district regarding plaintiff. Plaintiff has no way 9of knowing exactly what information these directors may have but believes that it is prejudicial to him if it is similar to the leaflet referred to in Paragraph 22, supra. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to a hearing before an unbiased forum. The select information distributed by Bernd and Bernard taints the decision-makers in a way which makes it impossible for them to provide plaintiff a fair hearing. 24. Plaintiff's reputation and employment have been injured by defendants' actions and their conspiratorial intent to deny plaintiff the normal and usual processes of the district with respect to due process and protection of plaintiff's rights to privacy. 25. The school directors have shown an inclination to listen to adverse information from private sources, which they refuse to disclose, but have refused to allow citizens in general an audience to voice their concerns about Central High School in general. Those patrons petitioned the board for a public meeting in regard to the Central High School situations. Their petition met the requirements of state law. The district refused to honor the petition. This all happened during the weeks of January 21 February 1, 1993. 26. The Defendants Bernd and Bernard knowingly obtained and relied upon a false statement under oath from an employee witness, Mary Doe. Mary Doe has previously filed employee grievances against plaintiff in his official capacity for refusing to grant certain privileges to her. Defendants Bernd and Bernard, 10on information and belief, have advised Mary Doe not to discuss her statement or claims with plaintiff or his representatives. 27. Defendants Bernd, Bernard, and Heller, knowingly relied upon a student's false statement taken under oath. outside of plaintiff's presence, as a basis for suspending plaintiff. The district then rewarded or promised to reward the student and/or her male parent for the information provided. The defendants now refuse to allow plaintiff equal privilege to examine this witness under oath. 28. The foregoing conduct of the defendants violates plaintiff's clearly established right to due process and equal protection of laws. Plaintiff has no alternative relief by which to redress the wrongs perpetrated against him other than this action for injunctive relief and for damages. Any other relief would be so uncertain, time consuming, untimely and costly so as to effectively deny relief. This action is therefore his only adequate remedy. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 1. That the Court declare that the Little Rock School District has breached the terms of its personnel policies, and thereby its contract with Plaintiff, and strict compliance with ATFDA by failing to provide plaintiff with a hearing with the superintendent or his/her designee, as scheduled by plaintiff through counsel for February 2, 1993, to review the charges and evidence prior to the time the Superintendent presents his 11recommendation to the Board. And, that the Court declare that the Little Rock School District has violated the terms of the ATFDA by prematurely providing the School Board Members with the Letter Notice of Recommendation to Terminate plaintiff. And further, that in light of this failure to strictly comply with the ATFDA, any suspension or termination by the board as to these charges is void under the applicable Arkansas law Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1501 et seq. and particularly Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1503. 2. That the Court declare that the school district has violated its own rule GDP by not affording plaintiff notice and an opportunity to review the evidence against him prior to notice being given by the administration to the school board and to the public. 3. That the Court declare that the school district has a policy of providing internal appellate review of administrative employment decisions before ultimate recommendations of suspension or termination are made to the school board and that that policy was not followed in this case, to the detriment of plaintiff. 4. That the Court declare that the Defendants who are the current board of directors of the Little Rock School District have been irreparably tainted and are no longer capable of providing the unbiased and fair hearing panel required by the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution for deciding the suspension/termination issues as called for under the ATFDA regarding plaintiff. 5. That the Court declare that Defendant Dr. Bernd's actions in providing information to the Little Rock Police Department and 12the Arkansas Sixth Judicial District Prosecutor was in bad faith and for the unlawful purpose of harrassment in an attempt to facilitate plaintiffs' resignation and or termination as principal of Little Rock Central High School and to deprive him of his right to due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment due process and egual protection clauses and 42 U.S.C. 1985
and that said actions resulted in damages to Plaintiff's reputation, professional career. and caused him mental anguish, and ridicule and public humiliation. Further, that the Court order defendants Dr. Bernd and Ms. Janet Bernard to pay damages in the amount of $1,000,000 each for these acts. 6. That the Court declare that Defendants Dr. Mac Bernd and Ms. Bernard's actions in providing unsubtantiated rumors and allegations to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, based upon statements they knew or should have known to be unrelieable, was in violation of the ATFDA, was in bad faith and for the unlawful purpose of harrassment in an attempt to facilitate plaintiffs' resignation and or termination as principal of Little Rock Central High School, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection clauses, and resulted in damages to Plaintiff's reputation. professional career. and caused him mental anguish, subjected him to ridicule and public humiliation. Further, that these actions resulted in the denial of Mr. Hickman's opportunity to obtain a fair and unbiased hearing as required by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and, that the Court order Dr. Bernd and Ms. Bernard 13individually and in their official capacity to pay plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000 for these acts. 7. That the Court declare that Defendant Janet Bernard's actions in attempting to coerce plaintiff to resign was in bad faith and for the unlawful purpose of harrassment in an attempt to facilitate plaintiffs' resignation and or termination as principal of Little Rock Central High School in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection clauses, and resulted in damages to Plaintiff's reputation, professional career, and caused mental anguish, subjected him to ridicule and public humiliation. Further, that the Court order Janet Bernard to pay damages to plaintiff in the amount of $1,000,000. 8. That the Court enjoin the Little Rock School District from calling a hearing on the suspension charges against plaintiff because of their failure to strictly comply with the ATFDA. Or, in the alternative. enjoin the Little Rock School District from holding a hearing until such time as an unbiased and fair hearing panel can be provided. 9. That the Court declare that Little Rock School District employee(s) , agents, board members, "John Does" who disseminated information of the private presonnel documents, particularly the letter of notice of recommendation of termination reported in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette violated plaintiff's right to a due process fair hearing, his statutory right to a private hearing on the issues, resulted in damages to Plaintiff's reputation. 14r professional career, and caused mental anguish, subjected him to ridicule and public humiliation and further order the person(s) to each pay plaintiff damages in the amount of $1,000,000. Further, Plaintiff prays that the person(s) be enjoined form further dissemination of any information which may impinge upon a fair hearing for plaintiff on these issues. 10. That the Court enjoin any and all Little Rock School District employees, agents and Board members, and "John Roes" who have, or who may obtain information related to the recommendation to terminate plaintiff from further disseminating that information to the hearing panel or to the public until the time of the hearing. 11. That the Court enjoin all Little Rock School District employees, agents, board members, and anyone else who has, or who may obtain information from LRSD related to plaintiff's employment status from further dissemination of that information to the public in any manner, particularly from leaks to the press as occurred with Dr. Bernd's original letter of suspension/termination. 12. That the Court enjoin the Superintendent from gathering or using information obtained after the date that he sent Plaintiff his Notice of Recommendation of Termination because any such information has not, nor could it reasonably be considered to have. been provided to Mr. Hickman in the Notice of Recommendation of Termination as required by the ATFDA and has been refuse to be provided in response to plaintiffs request for scheduling a hearing before the superintendent or his designee. 1513. That the Court declare that plaintiff does not have to rebut inadequately disclosed or later gathered charges or evidence of which he was denied access through the informal hearing before the superintendent or his/her designee. Plaintiff, further prays for such additional or alternative relief as warranted by law and fact, and for his costs including reasonable counsel fees. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, Bar #64046 Wiley Jr. , J^OOS^ Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72206 (501) 374-3758 DATED: February 5, 1993 b:hickman.com 16 J c :^> 5 ISi I f'^. x '4> ^ti 'S' ^JF>
/ I i, Ki w 5?IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JOHN HICKMAN Pii^INTIFF V, LR-C-93-088 L
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. CLOYDE MAC BERND, Superintendent, Little Rock School District
JANET BERNARD, Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate, Little Rock School District
The members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District: JOHN MOORE, KATHERINE MITCHELL, O.G. JACOVELLI, DORSEY JACKSON, WILLIE HAMILTON, PATRICIA GEE, and JOHN RIGGS, Individually and in Their Official capacities as Members of the Board of Directors Little Rock School District
"JOHN DOE(S)," AND "JOHN ROE(S)", unknown employee(s) or agent(s) of the Little Rock School District ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM For their Answer and Counterclaim, ??9j rs DEFENDANTS defendants Little Rock School District, Dr. Cloyde Mac Bernd, Janet Bernard, John Moore, Katherine Mitchell, O.G. Jacovelli, Dorsey Jackson, Willie Hamilton, Patricia Gee, and John Riggs state: 1. Paragraph of the Complaint provides general description of this litigation which requires no answer. 1 a Defendants nevertheless deny any implication of wrongdoing. 2. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is jurisdictional a statement which requires no answer. Defendants nevertheless deny any implication that they have violated the United States Constitution or the statutes listed in paragraph 2. 3. Defendants admit that plaintiff is an African/American citizen of the United States and a resident of the City of LittleRock, Arkansas
state that he is presently suspended from his job as principal of Little Rock Central High School
admit that plaintiff is a teacher as that term is defined in the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, admit that plaintiff's status as a teacher entitles him to certain rights
and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Defendants admit that Bernd is the superintendent of Little Rock School District
that it is Bernd's responsibility under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act to recommend termination of teachers when necessary
and that such recommendations are made to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Defendants deny that the policy referred to in paragraph 4 of the Complaint ("EPS Code GDP") has any applicability to this case. 5. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is admitted. 6. Paragraph 6 of the Complaint is admitted. 7. Defendant "John Doe(s) II have not been identified or served with the Complaint by the plaintiff. The answering defendants are, therefore, without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and must deny those allegations. 8. Defendant "John Roe(s) II have not been identified or served with the Complaint by the plaintiff. The answering defendants are, therefore, without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and must deny those allegations. kathy vHickznan. Ans9. Defendants deny that Bernd and Bernard began building a case for termination of plaintiff as principal of Central High School shortly after their employment. In fact, plaintiff was placed on probation during the 1991-92 school year and a determination was made to continue that probation for the 1992-93 school year before defendants Bernd and Bernard were employed by the Little Rock School District. Among the concerns cited by Bernd's and Bernard's predecessors as basis for continuing a plaintiff's probation for the 1992-93 school year was failure to comply with LRSD policy and procedure for II use of petty cash" and "management of activity fund monies." 10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is denied. 11. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint is denied. 12. Defendants admit that on or about December 29, 1992 Janet Bernard met with plaintiff Hickman to discuss with him certain concerns about his conduct and job performance. but deny that Bernard threatened or intimidated Hickman and state that it was Hickman, not Bernard, who raised the subject of Hickman's possible resignation. Defendants further deny that Bernard made any attempt to prevent plaintiff from exercising his constitutional or statutory rights and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. Defendants deny that Bernard threatened or intimidated the plaintiff, deny that Bernd supported or encouraged Bernard to threaten or intimidate the plaintiff and deny that Bernd or Bernard took any action for the purpose of depriving plaintiff of any kalhyUUcknun.Ana 3protection or opportunity afforded him by the United States Constitution, federal or state law, or Little Rock School District policy. 14. Defendants deny that plaintiff refused to resign and state that plaintiff did not tell Bernard whether or not he would resign. Defendants admit that Bernd and Bernard provided the Little Rock Police Department with information which indicated that Hickman might have engaged in criminal activities. The criminal investigation was initiated because of the Little Rock School District's responsibility to report criminal conduct and not for the purpose of retaliating against plaintiff. Defendants did not act in bad faith. Plaintiff does not allege that the information provided to the Little Rock Police Department by defendants Bernard and Bernd does not provide a reasonable basis for believing that plaintiff engaged in criminal conduct. 15. Paragraph 15 of the Complaint is denied. 16. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, defendants admit that Bernd wrote a letter to plaintiff on January 7, 1993 (not 1992) which began with the following sentence: "I have reason to believe that cause exists for your termination and that your immediate suspension IS necessary". Plaintiff has been informed, both directly and through his counsel. that Bernd has suspended him, but has not recommended termination. Defendants admit that Bernd's January 7, 1993 letter states the kaihyVHickman. Ana 4reasons for the suspension but deny that the letter is "essentially a recommendation for termination". Defendants admit that the content of Bernd's letter was publicized on or about January 9, 1993. Defendants state that Bernd's January 7, 1993 letter was sent immediately by certified mail but admit that plaintiff did not pick up his certified letter until January 23, 1993. Defendants deny that the contents of the notice were "privileged" but state that the contents of the notice were intended to be confidential. Defendants deny that Bernd "provided the information to the news media" and state that he took the precaution of telling each board member and the few Little Rock School District employees who saw the letter that the contents of the letter must remain confidential. On January 9, 1993, Bernd again emphasized to the LRSD board that members should not comment to the press about Hickman's suspension because "fair treatment for all parties concerned is extremely critical in this matter." Defendants deny that they caused or allowed circulation of the letter or that they took any action or failed to take any action which had an adverse impact on plaintiff's reputation. Defendants deny that neither Bernd or Bernard communicated any of the facts contained in the January 7, 1993 letter to the staff or the students of Central High School. Defendants admit that Hickman was suspended as principal of Central High School, but deny that defendants intended "to convey the belief that Hickman had engaged in criminal or other nefarious conduct heinous in nature" and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint. kalhyVHickjmn. Am 517. with respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, defendants deny that they enlisted the assistance of the Prosecuting Attorney and the Little Rock Police Department for the purpose of "investigating rumors" because "their proof was weak" and they "did not have adequate information or a sufficient basis for their recommendation" of suspension. In fact, Bernd's suspension of the plaintiff was based partly upon the sworn statement of a female Central High School student that plaintiff had called her into his office, grabbed her behind, hugged her and kissed her on the mouth. On one occasion, in the student's words. "he told me to stand up and I stood up, and he grabbed himself and he said. 'See what you do with me' and he was hard. II Bernd's suspension recommendation was also based upon evidence that plaintiff collected $2500.00 to $3000.00 in ticket sales for a lip sync contest which was held at Central High School on December 11, 1992, but deposited only $546.00 with the Central High School bookkeeper on Monday, December 14, 1992. Bernard discussed these issues with Hickman prior to his suspension. Defendants deny that they made this information public but admit that Bernd and Bernard presented the information to the Little Rock Police Department. Defendants deny that they involved the police for the purpose of making public information which would otherwise be confidential. and state their belief that information gathered during a police investigation IS not subject to public disclosure until the investigation is concluded. Defendants deny that either they or "the police authorities II are attempting to build a case against laihyVHickman.Am 6plaintiff but admit that they have cooperated with police authorities. Most of the "school defendants" were unaware of the existence of a criminal investigation and consequently had no II expectation" that the prosecutor would charge plaintiff with criminal conduct. Defendants Bernd and Bernard were aware of the investigation and admit an expectation that if plaintiff has committed crime he will be charged with criminal conduct. Defendants deny that two months time has passed since Hickman's suspension and deny that Bernd and Bernard generated any publicity concerning this matter, but admit that no charges have been filed against plaintiff. Defendants deny the remaining the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 18. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, defendants admit that the Little Rock School District works to keep personnel matters private to the extent authorized by law but denies that the district has violated any district policy in this case and denies that the district has breached its contract with plaintiff, violated the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act or denied plaintiff due process. 19. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Complaint, defendants admit that Bernd provided Little Rock School District board members a copy of the suspension notice which was sent by certified mail to plaintiff, deny that the notice contains a recommendation for termination, and deny that Bernd included with the letter a ft scurrilous leaflet which adversely a reflected upon plaintiff's reputation." Defendants admit, however, lulhy VHickman. Ans 7that Bernd has on occasion shared with the board members copies of flyers disseminated in the community, one of which referred to Hickman. 20. Paragraph 20 of the Complaint is denied. Defendants expressly deny that the alleged "school district policy" quoted in paragraph 2 0 of the Complaint has any application to this case. Plaintiff has quoted an LRSD policy which he knows or should know applies only to "classified staff". The policy itself contains the following definition of "classified employee": "Any person employed by the District under a written annual contract who is not required to have a teaching certificate issued by the Arkansas Department of Education as a condition of employment". As a high school principal, plaintiff is required to have a teaching certificate issued by the Arkansas Department of Education as a condition of employment. He is not a It classified" employee and is not covered by the policy he claims the defendants failed to follow. 21. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint, defendants admit that plaintiff's counsel transmitted by fax at approximately 5:15 p.m. on February 1 a request that a hearing be conducted before the superintendent on February 2, 1993 and admit that plaintiff has not had a hearing before Bernd, but state that no such hearing is required by LRSD policy or practice and that the evidence relied upon by Bernd was delivered directly to the plaintiff prior to the time he engaged kathyVHickman.Anfl 8counsel. Defendants deny the implication that they gave the notice of plaintiff's suspension to the press and deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 22. Defendants deny that they have directly or indirectly refused to allow plaintiff to communicate with witnesses and that they have failed to provide the names of witnesses. In fact, defendants have provided the plaintiff with copies of the sworn statements of two potential witnesses and with a copy of a report of their investigation of the lip sync contest which names other potential witnesses. Defendants have not denied plaintiff due process but have, in fact, provided plaintiff copies of all of the statements and documents relied upon as a basis for plaintiff's suspension. 23. Defendants admit that plaintiff "is entitled to a hearing before an unbiased forum" but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24. Paragraph 24 of the Complaint is denied. 25. Defendants deny that the school directors have refused to allow citizens "to voice their concerns about Central High School in general". The petition referred to in paragraph 2 5 of the Complaint requested a hearing It for the purpose of discussing matters related to Little Rock Central High School and Principal John Hickman. II The Little Rock School District Board of Directors declined to conduct a meeting for the purpose of discussing John Hickman in order to preserve his opportunity for a fair hearing. The Board of Directors has since received a petition which requests kaihy\Hiclanan.Ao 9a meeting about Central High School and has scheduled a meeting in response to the petition. The remaining allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the Complaint are denied. 26. Paragraph 26 of the Complaint is denied. 27. Paragraph 27 of the Complaint is denied. 28. Paragraph 28 of the Complaint is denied. 29. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the prayer of the Complaint are denied and defendants deny that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in that paragraph. 30. Defendants deny that they have violated "Rule GDP", state that Rule GDP has no application to this case (see paragraph 20, supra) and deny that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in paragraph 2 of the prayer of the Complaint. 31. Defendants deny that they have violated any Little Rock School District policy and deny that plaintiff is entitled to the declaration requested in paragraph 3 of the prayer of the Complaint. 32. Defendants deny that the Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District "have been irreparably tainted and are no longer capable of providing the unbiased and fair hearing panel required" in this case. Plaintiff's request that the court declare the Board to be incapable of providing an appropriate hearing should be denied. 33 . Paragraph 5 of the prayer of the Complaint is premised upon Bernd's actions in providing information to the Little Rock Police Department and the Arkansas Sixth Judicial District kaQ^\HickinaQ.Ans 10Prosecutor. Plaintiff contends that Bernd did this "in bad faith and for the unlawful purpose of harassment". In truth, Bernd merely reported information which he believed showed that crimes had been committed by the plaintiff. Bernd believes he had a duty to provide the information and defendants are unaware of any authority for the proposition that Bernd had a duty not to provide the information. Plaintiff does not contend that the information provided by Bernd is not true or that it does not constitute evidence that crime has been committed by the plaintiff. a Defendants deny the remaining assertions contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint and deny that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in that paragraph. 34. Defendants deny that either Bernd or Bernard relayed unsubstantiated rumors and allegations to the LRSD Board of Directors, violated the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, acted in bad faith or acted for the purpose of harassment of the plaintiff in an effort to facilitate his resignation or termination. Defendants deny that they have violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. deny that plaintiff no longer has an opportunity to obtain a fair and unbiased hearing, and deny that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in paragraph 6 of the prayer of the Complaint. 35. Defendants deny that Bernard attempted to coerce the plaintiff to resign, acted in bad faith, acted for the purpose of harassing the plaintiff to facilitate his resignation or katfay VHickman. Aw 11termination, and deny that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in paragraph 7 of the prayer of the Complaint. 36. Defendants deny that they have violated the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act and state that there is no basis to enjoin the Little Rock School District from conducting a hearing on the suspension charges against the plaintiff. 37. Defendants move for more definite statement with a respect to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the body of the Complaint and paragraphs 9 and 10 of the prayer of the Complaint. Those paragraphs refer to "John Doe(s)" and "John Roe(s)". The defendants do not know who plaintiff contends did those things ascribed to "John Doe(s) II or "John Roe(s)" in the Complaint. Plaintiff should be required to identify the "John Doe(s)" and "John Roe(s) 11 before the other defendants can reasonably be required to frame a complete response to the allegations in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Complaint and paragraphs 9 and 10 of the prayer of the Complaint. 38. Plaintiff asserts in paragraph 9 of the prayer of the Complaint that he has a "statutory right to a private hearing on the issues". This assertion is in conflict with the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, which allows a private hearing unless either the teacher involved or the board desires that the hearing be public. Defendants deny that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in paragraph 9 of the prayer of the Complaint. 39. Defendants deny that plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested in paragraph 10 of the prayer of the Complaint, kad^KHlcknutn-Am 12and deny that the court may properly issue an injunction against people who have not been identified by the plaintiff. 40. Defendants deny that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in paragraph 11 of the prayer of the Complaint. 41. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the prayer of the Complaint ignore the fact that plaintiff has been suspended and notified of continuing investigation by LRSD. Sufficient grounds for plaintiff's suspension existed at the time of his suspension. There has been no recommendation for termination. If plaintiff is recommended for termination, he will receive proper notice of the recommendation, including a clear and concise statement of the reasons for the recommendation. Defendants therefore deny that a plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the prayer of the Complaint. 42. Defendants deny each and every allegation of the Complaint which is not specifically admitted in this Answer and Counterclaim. 43. Defendants affirmatively state that plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies which are available to him. 44. Defendants affirmatively state that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 45. Defendants affirmatively state that they are public school officials who acted within the scope of their responsibilities and they claim all immunities available to them by law. kathyVHiclanan. An* 1346. Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer and Counterclaim and to further plead. COUNTERCLAIM 47. A lip sync contest was held at Central High School at approximately 9:00 p.m. on Friday, December 11, 1992. Approximately 150 tickets were sold at the door for $2.00 each. After the tickets ran out, a $3.00 admission fee was charged. Custodians, campus security officers and Little Rock police officers working the event estimated a crowd of at least 1600 students. 48. Four LRSD patrons collected money at the door. The patrons counted the money received at the lip sync contest and turned the money over to Hickman. One patron personally counted between $2500.00 and $3000.00. The money was turned over to Hickman. On Monday, December 14, 1992, Hickman deposited only $546.00 with the Central High School bookkeeper. Upon information and belief, the remaining funds were converted by plaintiff to his own use. 49. Hickman arranged for a group of students to attend a special showing of the movie "Malcom X" at the University Quartet Cinema on December 11, 1992. One hundred ninety-nine tickets were sold to students on the Central High School campus. Seven hundred two dollars in cash was advanced by the school bookkeeper to pay for student admission to the theater, as requested by Hickman. Hickman personally picked up $702.00 from the bookkeeper on the kathyVHiclonan.And 14afternoon of December 11. He paid $555.50 to the theater manager for all student admission fees. No amount of money was returned to the bookkeeper. Upon information and belief, Hickman converted to his personal use the difference between the amount advanced by the bookkeeper and the amount paid to the theater, a total of $146.50. 50. Rule 13(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a supplemental pleading, with permission of court, to raise additional counterclaims which later become known to a defendant. The Little Rock School District is in the process of investigating other financial transactions involving the plaintiff, and reserves the right to seek permission to supplement this Counterclaim in accordance with Rule 13(e). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, defendants pray for dismissal of plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, for their attorney's fees and costs expended herein, for a judgment on their Counterclaim in an amount to be proved at trial, and for all other just and proper relief. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. CLOYDE MAC BERND, JANET BERNARD, JOHN MOORE, KATHERINE MITCHELL, O.G. JACOVELLI, DORSEY WILLIE HAMILTON, PATRICIA GEE, AND JOHN RIGGS JACKSON, lathyUiickimn.Aiv 15FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B/? Christopher Hell Bar No, 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer and Counterclaim has been served on John W. Walker, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 by HAND DELIVERY on this Sth day of February 1993. kathyVHickman.Aos 16 FEB-19-93 FBI 15:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 filed U S Di'STRJCT cn: EA3TErl\ 1 9 1993 JOHN HICKMAN VS. CAR^ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO^T EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF NO. LR-C-93-008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court upon plaintiff's application for preliminary injunctive relief. The Court has determined that no evidentiary hearing is required in order to dispose of plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief. Viewing the pleadings in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the Court concludes 1 that there is no lawful basis for enjoining defendants from proceeding with the hearing concerning plaintiff's suspension before the Board of Directors for the Little Rock School District. The Complaint in this action was filed on February 5, 1993, by Mr. John Hickman the Principal of Little Rock Central High School, against the Superintendent, the Associate Superintendent and the Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District, together with certain "John Does and John Roe(s)." Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and 1 AO 72A (Rev. S/82)FEB-19-93 FRI 15:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 FILED U.S. OiSTRlCr COURT EASTERN DJ-STRiOT FEB 1 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAl^sA^-^Jiiie^i WESTERN DIVISION By: DEP. CLEHK JOHN HICKMAN PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-93-008 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS ORDER Pursuant to the findings and conclusions stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion of even date herewith, it is hereby ordered: 1. That the plaintiff's application and motion for preliminary injunction be, and the same is, hereby denied. 2. All discovery in this action is stayed pending further order of the Court. 3 . The parties will brief the issue whether this case should be dismissed without prejudice as to any defendant or defendants for prematurity, failure to exhaust state remedies. or on Y.Qunger-related principles. The defendants shall file their briefs on said issue on or before March 1, 1993. The plaintiff will respond on or before March 10, 1993 . SO ORDERED, this 1 A'^day of February, 1993 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE AO 72A (Rev, 8/82)FEB-19-93 FRI 15:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1983. Declaratory relief is sought under U.S.c 2201 and 2202. Plaintiff also asserts pendant claims under Arkansas law. Apparently on January 7, 1993, Dr. Cloyde Mac Bernd, the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District wrote a letter to the plaintiff, John Hickman, the first sentence of which states: "I have reason to believe that cause exists for your termination and that your immediate suspension necessary." is The plaintiff contends that the suspension and notice "is essentially a recommendation for termination although it is stated to be only a suspension." Complaint, Paragraph 16. The defendants' Answer states that "plaintiff has been informed both directly and through his counsel that Bernd has suspended him but has not recommended termination." Answer, 516. The parties agree that the content of the Bernd letter was publicized in the media on or about January 9, 1993. The plaintiff contends that the contents of the notice were privileged. The defendants deny that same was privileged but "state that the contents of the notice were intended to be confidential." The plaintiff "on information and belief" alleges that Dr. Bernd "either provided the information to the news media or he failed to take precautions to prevent the information from becoming a public issue. II The defendants deny that Bernd provided the information to the media and further allege that Dr. Bernd "took the AO 72A (Rev. 8/82) 2. FE3-19-93 FRI 15:15 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.05 precaution of telling each Board Member and a few Little Rock School District employees who saw the letter that the contents of the letter must remain confidential." The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants Bernd and Bernard (the Associate Superintendent) "enlisted or sought to enlist the assistance of Prosecuting Attorney, Mark Stodola, and the Little Rock Police Department for the purpose of investigating rumors and allegations which they had received from unidentified soxirces Involving plaintiff." The plaintiff goes on to allege that "the police authorities have cooperated with the defendant in attempting to build a case against plaintiff to the effect that he violated Arkansas Criminal laws in some respect." The Complaint alleges that "defendant Bernd gave notice to the Board of Directors of the School District, defendants herein, of the recommendation for termination and notice of suspension at about the same time that he mailed same by certified mail to the plaintiff. Complaint, 519. Plaintiff also alleges "on information and belief" that the defendant Bernd "included in the School Board information packet that Bernd delivered to the School Board Members a scurrilous leaflet which adversely reflected upon plaintiff's reputation." It is further alleged that the included for prejudicial reasons." "leaflet was intentionally The defendants deny that Bernd included such "scurrilous leaflet" but admit that Bernd has "shared with the Board Members copies of flyers disseminated in 3 AO 72a (Rev. 8/82) FEB-19-93 FRI 15:i SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 the community, one of which referred to Hickman." Answer, 519. At approximately 5:15 p.m. on February 1, 1993, plaintiff's counsel transmitted a fax to defendants' attorney requesting that a hearing be conducted before the Superintendent on February 2, 1993. The plaintiff alleges that the District has refused to afford plaintiff an opportunity for review of the evidence in support of the recommendation. The defendants admit that the plaintiff "has not had a hearing before Bernd, but state that no such hearing is required." and "that the evidence relied upon by Bernd was directly delivered to the plaintiff prior to the time he engaged counsel." Answer, 521. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants have "directly or indirectly refused to allow Plaintiff to communicate with witnesses on whose information they have relied and have thus frustrated Plaintiff's ability to prepare a defense." Complaint, ,[22. The defendants deny this and further allege that they "have provided the plaintiff with copies of the sworn statements of the two potential witnesses and with a copy of the report of their investigation of the Lip Sync Contest, which names other potential witnesses." Answer, 522. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants "knowingly relied upon a student's false statement taken under oath outside of plaintiff's presence as a basis for suspending plaintiff." (sic) Plaintiff goes on to allege that the district "then rewarded or promised to reward the student and/or her male parent for the 4 AO 72A (Rev. 8/52)FEB-19-93 FRI 15:16 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 07 information provided." Complaint, 5(27. These allegations are denied by the defendants. I Paragraph 28 of the plaintiff's Complaint states: The^ foregoing conduct of the defendants violates plaintiff's clearly established right to due process and equal protection of laws. Plaintiff has no Plaintiff has alternative relief by which to redress the wrongs perpetrated against him other than this action for injunctive relief and for damages. Any other relief would be so uncertain, time consuming, untimely and costly so as to effectively deny relief, is therefore his only adequate remedy. This action I ! The plaintiff asks the Court to decree that the Little Rock School District has breached its contract with the plaintiff and has not complied with Arkansas law "by failing to provide plaintiff with a hearing with the Superintendent or his/her designee as scheduled by plaintiff through counsel for February 2, 1993, to review the charges and evidence prior to the time the superintendent presented his recommendation to the Board." He i I further asks the Court to declare that the Little Rock School District has violated Arkansas Law "by prematurely providing the School Board Members with the letter notice of recommendation to termination plaintiff." Paragraph 4 of plaintiff's prayer states: AO 72A (Rev. 8/82) That the Court declare that the defendants who are the current board of directors of the Little Rock School District have been irreparably tainted and are no longer capable of providing the unbiased and fair hearing panel required by the due process clause of the the U.S. Constitution for deciding suspension/termination issues as called for under the ATFDA regarding plaintiff. 5 FEB-1.9-93 FRI 15:13 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.08 Paragraph 8 of the prayer in plaintiff's Complaint asks: That the Court enjoin the Little Rock School District from calling a hearing on the suspension charges against plaintiff because of their failure to strictly comply with the ATFDA. Or, in the alternative, enjoin the Little Rock School District from holding a hearing until such time as an unbiased and fair hearing panel can be provided. On February 10, 1993, plaintiff filed a "Supplemental Application for Motion for Preliminary (sic)" in which he seeks an injunction "restraining defendants from conducting a hearing upon plaintiff's suspension from his employment with the defendant School District scheduled for March 4, 1993. In support of his motion Plaintiff alleges: That defendants are unable to comply with federal due process requirements for a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal which state law dictates be composed of the school board defendants as is set out more fully in the accompanying Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 1. That plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim at trial and in obtaining the restraint sought by this Motion. 3. That the harm to plaintiff is irreparable. 4. That the harm to the defendants is negligible. 5. That the public interest is best served by granting this Motion for Preliminary relief. Plaintiff prays that the court hold an immediate hearing on his motion and thereafter order
That the school board defendants be enjoined from holding the scheduled March 4, 1993 hearing on plaintiff's suspension from his position. 1. That the defendants be ordered to provide him with AO 72A (Rev. 8/82) 2 . 2 . 6. FEB-19-93 FRI 15:17 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 a list of adverse witnesses who will testify at future hearing. any 3 . That the defendants be ordered to comply with the terms of the school district policies to require Supt. Bernd or a designee to meet with plaintiff to discuss and disclose all adverse information that defendant Bernd plans to present at any future hearing. In their "Response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction" the named defendants state that the plaintiff was suspended from his position at Central High School on January 7, 1993
that on February 5, 1993, the plaintiff formally requested a hearing before the Little Rock School District Board of Directors in accordance with the Arkansas Teachers Fair Dismissal Act
that the requested hearing has been scheduled for March 4, 1993, "by mutual agreement
" that the Members of the Board are "fully capable of making an impartial judgment about whether or not to sustain plaintiff's suspension
" that Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits
that the plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is denied
that the injunction would cause defendants harm
and that the public interest will not be served if an injunction is granted. In response to the plaintiff's motion that this Court order the defendants to provide him a witness list and to require that Superintendent Bernd meet with him "to discuss and disclose all adverse information that Defendant Bernd plans to present at any future hearing," the defendants assert that there is no basis for this Court to grant such an order. They assert that this Court 7 AO 72A (Rsv. 8/32) FEB-19-93 FRI 15:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 10 "should not presume that the defendants will not comply with all statutory requirements and provide all process which is due the plaintiff in connection with his appeal of his suspension." Attached to the defendants' response is a copy of the letter from Messrs. Walker, Branton and Burnette addressed to Mr. John Moore, President of the Little Rock School District and dated February 5, 1993. Part of that letter reads as follows: On January 23, 1993, Mr. Hickman received a written notice of suspension and proposed termination dated January 7, 1993, from Superintendent C.M. Bernd. Please be advised that pursuant to Title 617-1509 of the Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated, as amended, Mr. Hickman requests a hearing before the Little Rock School Board termination. upon his suspension and proposed In his brief in support of his application for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff notes that the defendants have now I filed an Answer to the plaintiff's complaint "wherein all of them take the same position with regard to the facts in this case." He also notes that all of the defendants are presently represented by the same attorney. He argues that this demonstrates that the School Directors have accepted "as fact" representations which have not been presented to them in a formal hearing. Plaintiff also argues that the defendants' attorney "stands as prosecutor and as representative of Dr. Bernd and Ms. Bernard at the same time that he stands as a representative of the School Directors," He argues that this confuses the roles of the administrators and the Board Members, 8 the former being AO 72A (Pe< 8/82)FEB-19-93 FRI 15:18 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 11 "accusatory" and the latter being "adjudicatory." It is alleged that because the defendants have denied plaintiff's allegations and plead facts contrary thereto, the Board Members have demonstrated "their predisposition" and judgment. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's brief states
The harm in going forward with a hearing is irreparable in that plaintiff's future ability to obtain a fair hearing will be prejudice has impossible. impossibility. already rendered The publicity and that near But plaintiff's case is one of the few instances where irreparable harm is not necessary for an injunction. His right to nullification of any board action is statutory if defendants fail to abide by their own policies under Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1503. See South Central Bell Telephone v. Louisiana Public Service Comm. 744 F.2d 1107, 1120 (5th Cir. 1984) and 7, Pt.2 Moore's Fed. Pract. 565.04[1]. a The plaintiff goes on to allege that defendants will not be harmed if an injunction is granted and that the public interest "is best served in having fair employment hearings." STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF The Court's analysis must begin with the standard set forth in Dataphase Systems, Inc, v, C L Systems, Inc.. 640 F.2d 109 (Sth Cir. 1981): [W]hether a preliminary injunction should issue involves consideration of (1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant
(2) the state of balance between the harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant
(3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits
and (4) the public interest. Id. 640 F.2d at 113. The Court went on to explain, in part, how the test should be applied
At base, the question is whether the balance of equities so 9 AO 72A (Rev. 3/82) FEB-19-93 FRI 15:19 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 12 favors the movant that justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined. ... If the chance of irreparable injury to the movant should relief be denied is outweighed by the likely _ injury to other parties litigant should the injunction be granted, the moving party faces a heavy burden of demonstrating that he is likely to prevail on the merits. Conversely, where the movant has raised a substantial question and the equities are otherwise strongly in his favor, the showing of success on the merits can be less. Id. Plaintiff argues that, absent injunctive relief, he will be denied his right to have his case heard by an impartial decisionmaker. Plaintiff alleges that the Superintendent has already judged the merits of Plaintiff's dismissal and that the Board, by virtue of Dr. Bernd's one-sided presentation and other biased evidence, is predisposed to uphold Mr. Bernd's decision and is, therefore, not an impartial decisionmaker. In a similar case, involving a Nebraska state employee, the Eighth Circuit rejected such a contention. Nevels V. Hanlon. 656 F.2d 372, 376 (Sth Cir. 1981)
accord, Welch v, Barham. 635 F.2d 1322, 1325 (Sth Cir. 1980) (cited by Defendants)
accord. Norbeck v. Davenport Community.School District. 545 F.2d 63, 69 (Sth Cir. 1976) (cited in Nevels and cited by Defendants). In Nevels, the Eighth Circuit stated
[The due process clause does not prevent the Board from deciding the issue of Plaintiff's employment.] The contention that the combination of investigative and adjudicative unconstitutional adjudication . functions risk of necessarily bias in creates an administrative . must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators
and it must convince that, under a realistic appraisal 10 AO 72A (Rev. 8/82). FEB-19-93 FRI 15:20 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 13 I Id. . AO 72A (Rev. 8/82) of psychological tendencies and human weaknesses, conferring investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individuals poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee implemented. of due process is to be adequately I i 656 F.2d at 376. The Eighth Circuit stated that the Nebraska Civil Service Commissioner was not constitutionally incapable of rendering an objective judgment. The Eighth Circuit earlier concluded, in a virtually identical case, that a former school superintendent had not shown that the school board members had reached an irrevocable prejudgment that would have precluded the former superintendent from receiving due process in the hearing to determine whether he should be discharged. 1980). I i Welch V. Barham. 635 F.2d 1322 (Sth Cir. In Welch, the Eighth Circuit stated: At least in the absence of a claim of personal animosity, illegal prejudice. or a personal or I financial stake in the outcome, school board members are entitled to this presumption of honesty and integrity. Merely by its involvement in the events preceding Barham's discharge, the Board did not become so tainted as to lose this presumption. As the [Supreme] Court stated in Hortonville [Joint School Diet, No. 1 V. Hortonville Education Ass'nl
Mere familiarity with the facts of a case gained by an agency in the performance of its statutory role does disqualify a decisionmaker. not, Nor however. is a decisionmaker disqualified simply because he has taken a position, even in public, on a policy issue related to the dispute, in the absence of a showing that he is not capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances. [Hortonville, 426 U.S. 482, 493 (1976).] 11 I FEB-19-93 FRI 15:20 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 14 * * * At the inost, the record as a whole demonstrates that the board members tentatively, but not irrevocably, had formed an opinion concerning Barham's termination based on their previous official involvement with Barham. enunciated Under the principles enunciated in Hortonville and Norbeck Fv. Davenport Community School District. 545 F.2d 63, 69 (Sth Cir. 1976)], the evidence is insufficient to permit a finding of actual bias or improper judgment in this case. Welch. 635 F.2d at 1326 (internal citations and quotations omitted). A. Irreparable Injury and Adequacy of Remedy at Law Plaintiff is wrong to assert that he need not show the threat of irreparable injury in this case in order to obtain a I preliminary Injunction. He cites one case, South Central Bell Telephone v, Louisiana Public Service Commission. 744 F.2d 1107, 1120 (5th Cir. 1984), in support of his argument. However, South Central Bell involved a challenge to a Louisiana Public Service Commission action that contravened a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Order. The statute governing FCC Orders specifically provided that any injured party could move for and receive injunctive relief upon a showing that any party's action contravened the FCC Order (other than for payment of money). 47 U.S.C. 401(b) Plaintiff in South Central Bell met the statutory requirements showing that the Louisiana Public Service Commission violated the FCC Order. The statute did not require a showing of irreparable injury (any injury would suffice), and 12 AO 72A {Rev. 8/32) FEB-19-93 FRI 15:21 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 15 plaintiff South Central Bell indisputedly made no showing of irreparable harm. The district court granted preliminary injunctive relief according to the statute. The Fifth Circuit upheld the preliminary injunctive relief on statutory grounds even absent any showing of irreparable injury. 744 F.2d at 1120. There is no such statute applicable to this case, however. Plaintiff cites Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1503 which provides: This subchapter is not a teacher tenure law in that it does not confer lifetime appointment nor prevent discharge of teachers for any cause which is not arbitrary, nonrenewal, capricious. termination, or discriminatory. suspension. or A other disciplinary action by a school district shall be void unless the school district strictly complies with all provisions of this subchapter and the school district's applicable personnel policies. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1503 (1991 Supp.). But this statute says nothing about the predicate for injunctive relief. The federal test remains that set out in Dataphase, supra. The threat of irreparable harm is a key requirement. And, as always, in determining whether Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury, it is necessary to determine whether he has an adequate remedy at law. Here, Plaintiff will either receive a fair hearing in accordance with the law before the Board or he will not receive a fair hearing. In the latter event, he will be able to challenge the result in court. S^, National Farmers Union Ins., Co. V. Crow Tribe. 471 U.S. 845, 856 (1985)
Sampson v. Murray. 415 U.S. 61, 74 (1974). Although irrelevant to the irreparable harm adequate remedy analysis. the Court does note that 13 AO 72A (Rev. 8/32) I.FEB-19-93 FRI 15:21 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 16 Plaintiff will continue to be paid pending action by the Board. B. The Balance of Harm The Court has concluded that permitting Defendants to go forward with the proceedings contemplated by Arkansas law poses no threat of irreparable injury to Plaintiff since Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law. The harm to him in the absence of injunctive relief is therefore small, particularly when one considers the speculative nature of his concerns. On the other hand granting an injunction would greatly harm Defendants by preventing them from carrying out their statutory obligations under Arkansas law. So this factor weighs in favor of Defendants. C. The Probability that Movant Will Succeed on the Merits The Court has examined all of the pleadings and submissions of the parties and cannot, on the basis of those filings, conclude that Plaintiff is likely to prevail upon the merits of his claim. The merits with respect to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Bernd and Bernard turn on hotly contested factual issues which need not be determined at this stage of the litigation. And the merits of Plaintiff's claims against Board members cannot be evaluated until after the completion of the proceedings contemplated by Arkansas law. 14 AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)FEB-19-93 FRI 15:22 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 17 D. The Public Interest The State and the public have strong interest in a I vindicating the legal procedures established by the State I I Legislature for dealing with the suspension of teachers and principals J The language of NorbecX y, Davenport COTTimunitv School District^ 545 F,2d 63, 69 (1976) is instructive
However, assuming, arguendo, that Norbeck was deprived of a "liberty" interest, we find that he was not denied due process, In Hortonville, Joint School Dist, No, 1 V. Hortonville Education Ass^n, 426 U.S. 482, 96 S.Ct. 2308, 2315, 49 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), the Supreme Court stated that a determination of what process is due requires the consideration of the individual's interest in the decision, as well as the state's interest in a particular procedure for making it. In Hortonville contract negotiations between the school board and the teachers' association reached impasse. The teachers then went on strike, which was illegal under Wisconsin law. The school board, after notice and hearing, terminated all the striking teachers. The teachers complained that the board, because it had participated in the negotiations, was not sufficiently impartial to exercise discipline over the striking teachers. Under state law the school board was the only entity empowered to hire or fire the teachers, held
The court A showing that the Board was "involved" in the events proceeding this decision, in light of the important interest in leaving with the Board the power given by the state legislature. is not enough to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity policymakers with decision making power. in Id. at 2316 (emphasis added). We find Hortonville dispositive of the constitution and 1 The Court has examined the pertinent Arkansas Statutes and concludes that they provide a fair and reasonable opportunity for aggrieved persons to challenge their suspensions. 15 AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)FEB-19-93 FRI 15:23 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 18 statutory issues before us. First, the board, under Iowa law, was the only body empowered to renew, renew, teachers' contracts. Second, Norbeck's allegation that one of the board members tried to influence a member of the Black community to testify against him at the public hearing states no greater "involvement" than was present in Hortonville, conclude, in light of the significant role maintaining^ integrity and efficiency in administration given the board by the Iowa legislature, that the allegation here is not of sufficient substance or not We in school to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity that clothes decision makers. Absent strong, clear and specific allegations of bias and prejudgment, federal courts should not interfere with on-going state-established procedures for challenging personnel-employment decisions. Plaintiff's allegations directed at the Board member defendants falls short in that respect. At the conclusion of the proceedings contemplated by the Arkansas law the plaintiff, of course, will have an opportunity to make any challenge thereto that he deems appropriate. POTENTIAL DISMISSAL The Court is raising sua sponte the possibility that all or part of this case should be dismissed without prejudice as to some or all of the defendants on abstention. exhaustion. prematurity, or Younger-related grounds. In Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd, . 420 U.S. 592, 95 S.Ct. 1200 (1975), the Supreme Court applied the Younger abstention doctrine to a civil case for the first time. The Supreme Court there stated
16 AO 72a (Rev. 8/82)FEB-19-93 FRI 15 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 19 The seriousness of federal judicial interference with state civil functions has long been recognized by this Court. We have consistently required that when federal courts are confronted with requests for such relief, they should abide by standards of restraint that go beyond those of private equity [We previously] emphasized a rule that should be very strictly observed that no injunction ought to issue against officers of a state clothed with well jurisprudence. authority to enforce the law in question, unless in a case reasonably free from doubt and when necessary to prevent great and irreparable harm. it * * The component of Younger which rests upon the threat to our federal system is thus applicable to a civil proceeding such as this [nuisance abatement action to close a theater showing allegedly obscene movies] quite as much as it is to a criminal proceeding. Younger however, also rests upon the traditional reluctance of courts of equity, even within a unitary system, to interfere with a criminal prosecution. Strictly speaking, this element of Younger is not available to mandate federal restraint in civil cases. But whatever may be the weight attached to this factor in civil litigation involving private parties, we deal here with a state proceeding which in important respects is more akin to a criminal prosecution than are most civil cases. The State is a party to the Court of Common Pleas proceeding, and the proceeding is both in aid of and closely related to criminal statutes which prohibit the dissemination of obscene materials. Thus, an offense to the State's interest in the nuisance litigation is likely to be every bit as great as it would be were this a criminal proceeding, similarly, while in this case the District Court's injunction has not directly disrupted Ohio's criminal justice system, it has disrupted that State's efforts to protect the very interests which underlie its criminal laws and to obtain compliance with precisely the standards which are embodied criminal laws. in its it * * A civil litigant may, of course, seek review in this Court of any federal claim properly asserted in and rejected by state courts. , . . But quite apart from appellee's 17 AO 72A (Rev. 3/S2)FEB-19-93 FRI 15:24 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.20 as we have right"to appeal had it remained in state court, we conclude that it should not be permitted the luxury which, co wi have already explained, is quite costly in terms of the interests which Younger seeks to protect [comity and federalism]. Huffman, 420 U.S. at 603-606, 95 S.Ct. at 1208-09 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Other authorities and principles also suggest the value of having the parties research the law in this area in order to provide the court with the benefit thereof. No motion to dismiss has been filed and there may be no basis for such a motion. Nevertheless, since the Court senses an issue here, it is directing Defendants to take the initiative by filing a brief on such issues on or before March 1, 1993 . Plaintiff will have until March 10, 1993, within which to respond. The Court notes that the complaint was filed herein on February 5, 1993. The Court will enter a separate Order concerning these issues this even date. Dated this \^^^day of February, 1993 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 AO 72A (Rev. 8/82)HAKD-DELIVERED February 23, 1993 Mr. Cloyde "Mac" Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Bernd: RECESVED FEB 2 4 1993 Office of Dssec I am in receipt of a letter dated February 18, 1993 from Mr. Chris Heller wherein he requests that I return certain records which you think are in my possession regarding the high school Ladies and Gentlemens' Club. I have tried to call Mr. Heller about this matter and have been advised that he is out of the city for the remainder of the week. want an immediate response from you. I am, therefore, writing you because I Mr. Heller also indicated I have refused certain requests to turn the records of that club over to school district officials. For the record, you are advised that Principal Linda Swain requested these purported records because I refused to provide information which would implicate Mr. John Hickman in wrongful or perhaps illegal conduct. I have no information which would even suggest that Mr. Hickman has acted anything other than a responsible school principal and role model for children, especially young black boys, at Central High School. I would like to know whom I am responsible to with respect to those records. My child. I am a sponsor of the Ladies and Gentlemen's Club. Bobby Porchay, is a member of that club. Our understanding is that we are the agents of the school children who are in that club, rather than of the school district and that the school district has no claim to the children's money. It is for the purpose of a field trip in April to Atlanta. The field trip was initiated in order to cause our children, many of whom are not as privileged as other children in this community, to have new experiences away from this community in an educational setting with proper adult chaperonage. I am answering my own question by saying that I am responsible to the students unless and until you show me a district rule that I have violated as a parent in seeking to work with my child and other children. I would also like for you to let me know whether any other parents anywhere in this district or at Little Rock Central High School have ever been treated in the manner which you, on behalf of the district, are treating me. I believe that this is in retaliation for my failure to provide you through Ms. Bernard and Ms. Swain with anything that you could use against Mr. Hickman in your effort to remove him fromyou could use against Mr. Hickman in your effort to remove him from Central High School, and with my failure to say what the police asked me to say or tried to get me to say at your request regarding Mr. Hickman and the Lip Sync Contest. If I am wrong, please let me know what the real reason for singling me out for this treatment. Today, I also learned that without notice to me and without obtaining my approval, Superior Bank acted on the authority of Mr. Mac Bernd and in effect removed me as an agent for the children in the Ladie and Gentlemens' Club by closing their account. Ms. Connie Merritt was treated the same way based upon my telephone conversation with her today. Simple courtesy would have reguired a notice to me and an opportunity to be heard regarding this matter before you approached Superior Federal. The way this was handled makes it appear that I am not worthy of respect and that I may have engaged in criminal behavior. That message will be strongly conveyed to the members of that club and to their parents. That is simply wrong and I resent it. I expect a prompt apology from you and from the school board and to have the monies of the children restored to their account. I also expect you to treat me with respect and deference as a school parent, patron. and volunteer dedicated to improving the quality of education and the educational experiences of my child and all the other children at Central. I am outraged. I will be even more outraged if you try to cancel the long awaited and well deserved trip to Atlanta of the members of the Ladies and Gentlemens' Club. Please give me a reply at once. cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Hafeeza Majeed Mr. John Hickman Mr. John Moore Mr. Darrell Brown Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Brown Judge Susan Wright Ms. Connie Merritt ^ly !, C. Very truly y Brenda Porchay MAR- 2-93 TUE 9: SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P.02 JOHN HICKMAN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION E os. SAS* c
.. ' 'AiGTCCuaT C: V. LR-C-93-088 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. CLOYDE MAC BERND, Superintendent, Little Rock School District
JANET BERNARD, Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate, Little Rock School District
The members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District
JOHN MOORE, KATHERINE MITCHELL, O.G. JACOVELLI, DORSEY JACKSON, WILLIE HAMILTON, PATRICIA GEE, and JOHN RIGGS, Individually and in Their Official capacities as Members of the Board of Directors Little Rock School District
"JOHN DOE(S)," AND "JOHN ROE(S)", unknown employee(s) or agent(s) of the Little Rock School District DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS For their motion, defendants Little Rock School District, Dr. Cloyde Mac Bernd, Janet Bernard, John Moore, Katherine Mitchell, O.G. Jacovelli, Dorsey Jackson, Willie Hamilton, Patricia Gee, and John Riggs state: 1, The United States Supreme Court has often recognized the importance of the interest which states have in their public school systems. For example, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213 (1972), the Court said that "[p]roviding public schools ranks at the very apex of the function of a State." 2. This State's important interest in education is reflected in the Arkansas Constitution
"Intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of a free and good government, the State shall ever maintain aHAR- 2-93 TUE 9:22 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education." Constitution of Arkansas, Art. 14, 1. The Arkansas Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to manage the State's public schools
"The supervision of the public schools and the execution of the laws regulating the shall be vested in and confided to same such officers as may be provided for by the General Assembly." Constitution of Arkansas, Art. 14, 4. 3 . The Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1501 - 1510) provides a process by which a teacher (the definition of which includes a principal) may appeal a suspension to the school district's board of directors. The "exclusive remedy" for a teacher aggrieved by the decision of the board is an appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the school district is located. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1510. A teacher who is dissatisfied with the decision of the circuit court may, of course. appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court. 4 . On the same day plaintiff initiated the process set forth in the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act by requesting a hearing before the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, he sought to enjoin that process in federal court. Plaintiff's complaint is premature in that it presumes that the process available to him under State law will result in some deprivation of his constitutional rights, but he has not yet availed himself of that process. All of the issues raised by plaintiff in his federal 2 bi i 5 MAR- 2-93 TUE SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 court complaint may be raised by him and will be properly considered at an appropriate point in the process established by 1 J State law. Plaintiff has not alleged any deprivation which cannot be remedied by the State law process to the same extent it could be remedied in federal court. 5, Exhaustion of State administrative remedies is not generally required as a prerequisite to bringing a 1983 lawsuit fPatsv V, Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 516 (1982)), but abstention principles apply with equal force to 1983 cases. E.g. Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, 477 U.S. 619 (1986) . Managing its public schools is a sufficiently important State interest to bring this case within the ambit of Younger abstention principles, and plaintiff will have an ! opportunity to raise his constitutional claims, when they become ripe, either before the Little Rock School District Board of Directors or in the process of judicial review of the Board hearing. This Court should therefore abstain under the principles of Younger v, Harris. 401 U.S. 37 (1971) which were applied to civil cases in Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S, 592 (1975) and which have since been expanded in their application as shown in the cases cited in the accompanying brief
3I t I MAR- 2-93 TUE 9:23 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 05 WHEREFORE/ for the reasons set cut above and in the accompanying brief, defendants pray that this case be dismissed pursuant to Younger abstention principles and because it is premature. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. CLOYDE MAC BERND, JANET BERNARD, JOHN MOORE, KATHERINE MITCHELL, O.G. JACOVELLI, DORSEY WILLIE HAMILTON, PATRICIA GEE, AND JOHN RIGGS JACKSON, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 f. Christopher He 11^^ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on John W. Walker, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206, on this 1st day of March, 1993. Kristopher Helle 4 * 2-93 TUE 9:21 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol rvj: A 1 ' MAR-'2-93 TUE 9:21 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 JOHN HICKMAN FO, .ED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION u. SAS'..: fji RiCTCGuaT ::e3 CT' C
V. LR-C-SS-OSB I i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. CLOYDE MAC BERND, Superintendent, Little Rock School District
JANET BERNARD, Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate, Little Rock School District
The members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District: JOHN MOORE, KATHERINE MITCHELL, O.G. JACOVELLI, DORSEY JACKSON, WILLIE HAMILTON, PATRICIA GEE, and JOHN RIGGS, Individually and in Their official capacities as Members of the Board of Directors Little Rock School JOHN DOE(S),'' AND "JOHN District
Mwnn ---- ROE(S)", unknown employee(s) or agent(s) of the Little Rock school District I* DEFENDANTS MOTION p DISMISS For their motion, defendants Little Rock School District, Dr. Cloyde Mac Bernd, Janet Bernard, John Moore, Katherine Mitchell, O.G. Jacovelli, Dorsey Jackson, Willie Hamilton, Patricia Gee, and John Riggs state: 1. The United States Supreme Court has often recognized the importance of the interest which states have in their public school systems For example, in Wisconsin v. Xd^, 406 U.S. 205, 213 (1972), the Court said that "[p]roviding public schools ranks at the very apex of the function of a State." 2 . This State's important interest in education is reflected in the Arkansas Constitution: "Intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of a free and good government, the State shall ever maintain aMAK-2-93 TUE 9:22 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education." Constitution of Arkansas, Art. 14, 1. The Arkansas Constitution authorizes the General Assembly to manage the State's public schools
i "The supervision of the public schools and the execution of the laws regulating the shall be vested in and confided to same such officers as may be provided for by the General Assembly. It Constitution of Arkansas, Art. 14, 4. I 3 . The Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act (Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1501 - 1510) provides a process by which a teacher (the definition of which includes a principal) may appeal a suspension to the school district's board of directors. The "exclusive remedy" for a teacher aggrieved by the decision of the board is an appeal to the circuit court of the county in which the school district is located. Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1510. A teacher who is I dissatisfied with the decision of the circuit court may, of course, appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court. 4. On the same day plaintiff initiated the process set forth in the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act by requesting a hearing before the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, he sought to enjoin that process in federal court. Plaintiff's complaint is premature in that it presumes that the process available to him under State law will result in some deprivation of his constitutional rights, but he has not yet availed himself of that process. All of th^ issues raised by plaintiff in his federal 2 (i I MAV2-93 TUE 9:22 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 court complaint may be raised by him and will be properly t 4 considered at an appropriate point in the process established by State law. Plaintiff has not alleged any deprivation which cannot be remedied by the State law process to the same extent it could be { ) remedied in federal court. 5. Exhaustion of State administrative remedies is not generally required as a prerequisite to bringing a 1983 lawsuit (Patsy V. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 516 (1982)), but abstention principles apply with equal force to 1983 cases. E.g. Ohio Civil Rights Commission y. Dayton .Christian Schools, 477 U.S. 619 (1986). Managing its public schools is a sufficiently important State interest to bring this case within the ambit of Younger abstention principles, and plaintiff will have an ii opportunity to raise his constitutional claims, when they become ripe. either before the Little Rock school District Board of I Directors or in the process of judicial review of the Board ! 1 I I hearing. This Court should therefore abstain under the principles i I of Younger v. Harris. 401 U.S. 37 (1971) which were applied to ! civil cases in Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S, 592 (1975) and which have since been expanded in their application as shown in the cases cited in the accompanying brief
3 = NAl?-*2-93 TUE 9:23 i SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 05 wherefore, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief, defendants pray that this case be dismissed pursuant to Y oun er abstention principles and because it is 1 premature. Respectfully submitted. little rock SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. CLOYDE MAC BERND, JANET BERNARD, JOHN MOORE, KATHERINE MITCHELL, O.G. JACOVELLI, DORSEY WILLIE HAMILTON, PATRICIA GEE, AND JOHN RIGGS JACKSON, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 BVT Christopher Hell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on John W. Walker, 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206, on this 1st day of March, 1993. 4 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHlN(/rON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. RRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Alw atlmilted hi Practice in I'twirgia & the District of (Vdurobia. John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MAR 1 0 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring March 8, 1993 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: Little Rock Central Controversy Dear Judge Wright: I am writing to request that you consider involving the Community Relations Department of the Department of Justice in matters relating to the pending controversy at Little Rock Central High School. That controversy clearly has desegregative impact and relates to the implementation of the desegregation plan. feature of the plan is that of public relations. A key Racial polarization is being created by the district's handling of this matter. Moreover, significant district funds are being devoted or stand to be devoted to it. This is in the form of counsel fees to at least three attorneys from the Mitchell firm. two from the Friday firm and one from a firm in Pine Bluff. We do not wish to allow the desegregation budget to bear these costs. Furthermore, we believe that the school district has devoted far more of the time of the school superintendent, the assistant superintendent, Ms. Janet Bernard, and numerous members of the staff. to the Central controversy than the district has devoted to implementing the desegregation plan. An audit of time of district employees would be one of the tasks for someone so that the costs of this effort can be assessed. I am requesting that the district be directed to explain whether the superintendent and Ms. Bernard have issued statements or orders to the effect that the desegregation plan cannot be implemented and therefore that the district employees may disregard it at will. make these inquiries. I am requesting further that the Justice Department The Office of Desegregation Monitoring has its hands full with the end of the year approaching. I also have another reason for making this request that I would prefer to sharePage Two Honorable Susan Webber Wright March 8, 1993 with the parties and the court in camera, share it with the court by conference call. I would be happy to Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, f /Qk W. / John W. Walker JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown03/12/1993 14:20 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. March 12, 1993 Dr. C. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 8i0 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 TO 3710100 P.Ol RECRVSh MAR I 2 1593 Office of Deseorogalion Mofiiloring Dear Dr. Bernd: It has been brought to our attention by several parents at Little Rock Cental High School that teachers and other faculty are harraLVng their children because of the recent .Peaceful demonstrations in which some of the students have participated. We are very cooperation in helping to disturbed by the incidents and are seeking your eliminate the harrassment of students by faculty and staff at the school. We .are - sure that -y ou wi,ll agree with us that conduct of this nature is certainly unprofessional for employees in .his district. __ki.. - 1 to handle this matter in much the same manner that*YOU advised the faculty and staff at Little Rock Central to refrain from discussing anything related to the case of suspended We are asking you principal John L. Hickman, Jr. appropriate individuals at C' behavior by the employees at the school. Please convene a meeting with the Central to discourage this type of If we should continue to receive complaints from parents and/or students concerning harrassment by employees at Central, we will seek the assistance of our counsel to handle this matter for us. Please advise me by return letter of your undesirable situation. effort to address this Sincerely, J Hafeezsr B. Majeed Ad Hoc Committee for Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools cc: 5 . Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Ms. Shirley Thomas, Chairperson LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee 03/17/1993 16:44 FROM JOHN U.UALKER P.ft. TO 3710100 P. 01 / March 17, 1993 Dr. C. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd: 11 1 I I' II receivsd M6R 17 Office of Desegregation Monitoring On March 12, the accompanying letter was faxed to you regarding the unprofessional conduct of employees at Little Rock Central High School. At the writing of this letter, 1 am still waiting for the response that has been requested. Unfortunately, on Tuesday, March 16, conduct of a similar nature (harassment) was demonstrated by still another employee at the LRSD, this time a school bus driver. After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve this matter concerning the bus driver, I visited with the employee at the bus stop on the morning of March 17. The employee demonstrated an attitude and behavior that was very unprofessional in the presence of students. Additionally, support personnel at the LRSD bus terminal and in the office of Mr. Gary Jones also demonstrated very poor judgement and communication skills during my attempts to resolve this matter. Dr. Bernd, I am responsible, much like you, to parents and students in this District. I would like very much to share with them the response that can only be provided by you, regarding the reported cases of student harassment and your efforts to resolve the matters. Please respond by letter at 2603 S. Brown St., Little Rock, AR 72204 or you can fax your letter to me at 374-4187. Respectfully, Hafeeza 0
Majeed Ad Hoc Committee for Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools cc: |,zMs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Ms. Shirley Thomas, LRSD BAC Chairperson Mr. Brad Montgomery, Supervisor, LRSD Transportation Dept. Mr. Gary Jones, Associate Superintendent, School Support 03/31/93 12:40 0301 324 2032 L R School DlSt ODM @002'002 a Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 31,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 L ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STAI At approximately 9 aan. this moroing, fewer that 100 students staged a sit-in in the Central High School Cafeteria to protest issues conreming the suspension and reported Grand Jury investigation of Mr. John Hickman, principal of the school. The LRSD wishes to assure the public and parents of more than 1875 students who are not participating in the sit-in, that classes, lunch breaks as well as nine-week exams will continue as normal. The school is safe and secure for all students. Students participating in the sit-in were informed that they will not be given the opportunity to make up class work or nine-week tests if they remain at the sit-in. These students will not be allowed to disrupt the education of the great majority of students who are attending classes and other normal activities. A parent involved in the demonstration had instructed students to disobey school officials who had instructed them to return to class and was notified that she must leave the campus. The LRSD appreciates you cooperation in allowing us to educate our students with minimal disruption by observing our continued media ban at Central High School. Tr-rrTT Mau iieiiaaAdAaa11:28 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM OOl'OOl Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE April 1, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD BOARD- OF DIRECTORS TO MEET WITH CENTRAL STI A small group of Central High School students and parents have gathered in the waiting area of LRSD Administrarinn Building requesting to meet with board members concerning John Hickman, suspended Central principal. Three or four board members will meet with them at 11 a.m. today at the LRSD Adrm'nstration office. 810 West Markham. The Little Rock School District is aware that this notice does not meet Arkansas Freedom of Information,Act time notification .requirements but due to the special circumstances we request your cooperation in this matter.11:28 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001-001 .J .1 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE April 1, 1993 For more informatioii: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD BOARD_OF DIRECTORS TO MEET WITH CENTRAL STI A small group of Central High School students and parents have gathered in rhe waiting area of LRSD Administration Building requesting to meet with board members concerning John Hickman, suspended Central principal. Three or four board members will meet with them at 11 a.m. today at the LRSD Adminstration office. 810 West Markham. The Little Rock School District is aware that this notice does not meet Arkansas Freedom of rnformation Act time QOtification requirements but due to the special circumstances we request your cooperation in this mattpr. ###04/12/93 13:30 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE April 12,1993 For more mformation: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD PERSONNEL HEARING TIME CHANGED The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will meet to continue the personnel hearing for Mr. John Hickman, suspended principal at Central High School, today at 5 p.m. at the LRSD Administrative Offices at 810 West Markham Street The meeting was originally scheduled for 4 pjn.Jz 93 08:14 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 .t Little Rock School District NEWS RPT.PASP J April 15,1993 For more mformatioii: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD PERSONNEL HEARING TO RESUME TONIGHT The Little Rock School District Board, of Directors will rpsn-mp personnel hearings for Mr. John Hickman, suspended Central High prindpal, tonight at 6 p jil The hearing will be held at the LRSD Administration Offices at 810 West Markham Street ### a Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE April 15,1993 For more information
Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS DELAY BEGINNING OF MEETING TONIGHT The employee hearing for Mr. John Hickman, suspended Central High School principal has been rescheduled to begin at 7 i tonight. Board President John Moore was out of town and was unable to return by the 6 p.m. tune previously set The meeting will be held at the LRSD Administration building at 810 West Markham Street. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000w it 0 I / 08:17 30^3^^032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/002 s Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE May 7, 1993 For more mformarion: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSp PERSONNEL HEARING TIME CHANGPn The Little Rock School District Board of Directors will meet to continue the personnel hearing for Mr. John Hickman, suspended principal at Central High School, Monday. May 10 . 1 pjffi, at the LRSD Administrative Offices at 810 West Markham Street. 'rrTT-rr 810 Markhaw, .43 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 121002/002 rs a Little Rock School District I NEWS RELEASE May 25,1993 For more information: i Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 1 LRSD PERSONNEL HEARING CANCET T.FD The little Rock School District Board of Directors has cancelled the personnel hearing for Mr. John Hickman, suspended principal at Central High School, scheduled for tonight, Tuesday. May 25. at 7 ILBL A board member is unable to attend due to a death in her family. Notification of the rescheduled hearing date and time will be provided when confirmecL ### 1 Ioe^^y 14:20 O50^32^M2 L R School Dlst -- ODM I-. . 0002/002 Little Rock School District June 4, 1993 Mr.. John Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Walker: I I am in receipt of your June 4, 1993 letter. 1 cinc m curious in view of your abhorence of rumors. I find the entire Please be advised that administrative placements in the School' District will be accomplished according to the law and School District policy, which includes the District i District's desegregation plan. Warmest personal regards, C. M. (Mac) Bernd .Superintendent of Schools c: Honorable Susan Webber Wright' Mr. Chris Heller Mrs. Ann Brown Mrs. Nancy Volsen Acre Mr. Rudolph Howard I J i 1JUN- 4-93 FRI 15:22 96/04/1993 10:24 SUSAN W WRIGHT FROM JOHN U.URLKER P.A FAX NO. 5013246576 TO S246896 P. 02 P. 92 JOHN w. WAIXFR RAU'll WASIIIWIDN MAKE BUKNOTK 'WILEY A. ORANTIJN. .Hi. AUSTIN POUTER. JU. * V l*rtdw ih ti-Agis < UW'DisIrlcl rfC-ftlumh/l. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Atthrnky At IjAW 172IJ BiiwaDWAY LITTU'
Rix'K. ARKANFASTjaiG Telephi )NE (.SOI) ,T7d-*}7.'B FAX (.'Xil) 37-1-117 4, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Berndt F-: I H "r 5 P , c . I understand that offers have made by you to several people regarding placement for the 1993-94 SChOOl year, for the principalship of Central High School. that the Joshua intervenors contend that there is no vacancy at Central High School
and that, in any case, all. positions must be advertised before recommendation for their placement may be made. This is so because of the affirmative recruitment provisions Of the Desegregation Plan and past practice, if not school board policy as well. , One of those is Please be advised I also understand one of the offerees is a Junior High principal. Please review the Joshua Intervenors monitoring reports regarding that principal's school. Joshua would consider it an affront to both the Desegregation Plan and to th^ class which they represent for this person to in effect be promoted in view of the shortcomings 'or deficiencies at her school. We would also Submit that those shortcomings reflect a lack of serious coraraitmeiit to and understanding of both the Desegregation Plan and its underlying commitments to promote integration, it is absolutely unthinkable for a person who has an entirely one race, non-certifled office staff to ba placed in the position of being the hiring officer for this majority black district. Ron-II. I am writing this letter to you and to the Court and asking the Court to-require objective monitoring of not only these two situations, but any other efforts made or contemplated by you regarding administrative placement for the 1993-94 school terra. You will agree, I am sure of, that this year has been wasted ffOBft' en educational and des^Q^i^gahive point of view rrom an eaucacionai ano oesegregative view. Wo need not take new initiatives which will only be more divisive and less I 1 KAI V T'>T*rtTrK'^+' III I-II-V 1 T J J likely to promote our legal commitments. I . 1. SiRcer^y, I John W. Walker I r: IJUN- 4-93 FRI 15:22 06x04/1993 10125 SUSAN W WRIGHT FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.R. FAX NO. 5013246576 TO 3246096 P. 03 p. e? jw: js cc: Honorable Suean Webber Wright Chris Heller, Esq. Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Nancy Volsen Mr. Rudolph Howard h! t t P 1 !i TOTAL P.e3c>A meeting of the Soard of Bducation o Gould School District. I Kind of Meeting-Regular Time-7
00 p.m. Meeting Plce-Adlnitratlve Office Date-March 4, 1996 Present Presiding officer-Alan Minor Clea Arnold Norvell Dixon Jerry Bailey Cleveland Murry Absent None Th* meeting w*e called to order by Alan Minor at 7:10 Motion by Clem Arnold with a minutes of the February 15, voted yes and the motion carried. Bailey to accept the , All second by Jerry l 1996 board meeting as presentea. Bailey to accept the ^11 voted yes - . k A- J a.. M wa'V* e nO and the motion carried. for the patrone of Willie Mae Dixon as designatedJ? J J"/tS" petition, f'rom the Gould school District 5? Hickwan's patrons asking Minor reviewed the seven reason, for contract be renewed. ^ract and he and the board non-renewal of Mr. u. datermined to not be an answered the patrons questions. ---- official hearing before accepted the petitions and comments take them under consideration. This was determined The board the board for Mr. Hickman. from th* patrons and will ... Terry Hurry } S'SFreuJrthS*. power 92 coming to Goulfor^a March, the Debutante Ball, Proa and Fair being presented at the Mrs. was held and that the COB team wUl b? spring Break, the Spring Play-?m, Graduation coming up, and the Science high school. No action was and July. taken on the credit card and phone bille fof Mrs. Kings matter had been settled before the board met. The board went into As a result of the executive aesaion at 9:00 P. (ll8cu.lon the motion wa. made s
a
.:na Murr, .u.a ..codeu ?l'*ll'crS"rcaJaJoniy'Bruil for ehool butluMj and <J' i.Ji u ro b do=u,,.nd. Th... s"*" at 9:50 p.m. Hickman's contract for 1 year I I Norvell Dixon, --------- by Alan Minor and Clem Arnold.1 'A'- t. .'5 i 1 1 Mr . Hicknan and Ms. Dunnaboe 3 presented the board Mith an update Vocational Education has baen approval. MS. Dunnahoe presented 199697 school year. the board with Motion by Clem at 10:07 p.m. Arnold with a second by financial information for Cleveland Murry to adjourn A 4I oe 13'96 18 26 x'O '---3--f->--1--5--4--.-3--1--4--.-5.3 PB COMMERCIAL ()02 By Jennifer Sicking y TKM <OMVeW>t $T4/P TOROYCE Fordyce has been looking for the money to fund the e-xpsnsfve - The 'cir7 ar temovgl process and the h,..2r -J <^6io:i:!OQ, Fordyce has exhausred state ard federal leads on getting rid of the old Kilsore Hotel, administrative iiiian c rJ55y Works said Wednesday. Mayor Wiiharn L.von. during the city council's February meeting, asked Works to renew the effort to find funding
o remove the multi-story building at Second ano Spring Streets, The detenorat'fig hotel, built m I>10, IS insulated w-.d: ascesros Works said the city has contacted state agencies about funding for the project However, she said everything at state level was out of rnoney. During that meeting, Lyon said, i We intend to explore every ave- fl nue because the building is K unsightly, the building is dan- F gerous and the building is being used by the wrong kind of peo plc," The city tried to hire Act 309 The hotel was relinquished to p, risoner,s from the state t-o tear the state by the Kilgore fswiily butltJIng. However, the heirs for back taxes. presence of the asbestos prevented the city fiom using the state prison labor. Al the Februafv couacil xeet ing, city attoreey Robin Wynn said the city had the authority to icar the building down but it would Ufid will require a crew to tear it down. also have to bear the cost. He special work estimated the cost to be between 5100,000 and S120.000. _ , (YtiurJn 1, l^Wtc Board Renews Contract By Jennifer SickiiiM CijrT>j One possibili^ would be for the city to get a private investor tq buy B the building. Works said. "If one could get the asbestos out 3,nd shore it up, it (the bunding) could be rBhsbihtatcd. said Works. "Of course it would prob-ably cost .more to rchabditate it" orrMB ccMKtRCiii <?*/ GCujtZ: - John HiCkmt" nawed by the
. 'jparinte.adent "5^5'. .)! during iis Monday night. moniiiiv 'C was retool Board mcccing Hickman said th* contrzet is for the 1996.97 school year. The beard aiso approved an Veterans War .Memorial, the Capitol and the Smithsonian. They are going to Ly t'b meet President Sill Clinton on Monday, the list day of their trip, Hickman said. The students held fund-raisers to Apay for the tnp. trip to Six Flags Over Twas on March 23, is planned for those Works called the Kilgore _ "lovely building that once served 2 as one of the Enest hotels in rhe area- JSncuJture^rcpan that wsli beyji next fall me prcgrxm wjl teach who could ,1': make the smi! engine and possibly repair, woodwork. zutomotri'e repai,- skills. Hickma.'i said. The tx)3rd aiso discussed the Washington trip, Hickman said. Hiekms.n said he hoped the trips would broaden the students' understandiug of what the world has to offc.- them. it B fe? upcoming stuoe.at trip IO Washington D.C during spring break The student wit! .eave Could on March 15 and return Marcii 19, according tc Hickman. Hickman said students would visit the Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monume.n
. Vietnam (Pinebluff* Clinic CQMMQDES Bone *59.wW RailitK^^lv^e 4>O Portc.i Cifclr'^a.yrOOOO I I 1402 W. 42ND rPiInNEu pSLuUuFrFr <[534-6994 1-800-344-9095 II asI 1 3I 1 $ 580^5 1'\^Pjne^a^ 535,37^ Glen E. Feeback, D,P.M. *James J. Naples, D.RM. Board CeniCed Aaigriia.-r Sovd Of Podlaine Surgery Treating Ait Foot Problems including Laser, Endoscopy And Arthroscopic Surgery irb? C5"* u^V i s I) 1 i I ^^s^^^BuaEKa^MSEi^iSaKCsa^ PjNE Blur: CoMMERaAL _ 3A^ ! i ij ISAS , t . V if 'I
> *o>,i<c ' ' 'I jt Board: Gould Superintendent Still Has tp iPay
- By Jef?iifer Sicitiiig phone interview Tuesday phone calls from August 1993 youre (ai a school boarii raeiubcr)^* . or THC COWMBICVML WWFF_________________ GOUIX) ~ The Gould School Board decided Monday to let Superintendent John Hickman coo- morning, Itidunan said he thought through June 1995- tinue to ,lay off some undocumented travel expenses past .lune 25, which is the end of the districts fiscal year. School hoard president .Alan Minor said, "We need to go ahead and resolve this with the remaining items that we have." The district was been deducing payments from Hickman's paycheck to cover more than SI2,000 in undocumented phone and credit card expenses accumulated ever a three-year period. The remaining amount is almost $1,500. Hickman was in a meeting at Little Rock on Monday and could irot attend the school board meeting that night. the Credit cards were his expense account. He also said the' school board wanted him to justify the traveL Hickman said he expects to he reimbursed foi much of the obtigated to do under the state of expenses because he has At a Sept. 14 called meeting. Hicltmati was directed to reimburse the school for more than 512,000 in telephone and Artansai iYou have Jo oiake are.^^, foods are, spent property.,. \ . 'There are no III feelings to-.,,,- drciJii card charges. The sohmitted documentation for the reimbursement is doire by a payroll deduction of $662-85 per pay- wards anyone.. Somrltmes yon,, i. have to do thin^.lhe public ha? .. elected ytw to do.^ Minor said. In other busine^ . the boartJ expenses to the school's auditor. For the expenses that 'arc If the superintendent presents a SZ4 vrtv siiae oiv a justified, I will be reimbursed for oocumcntatiori ofiginrity reque.sted at ate August llS, 1995, bttard'Vnebling for that, he said. Minutes from a called meeting in ottier txjstncss., toe ooaro^,^ decided lottobie ilnns on *d- - u -a-- -- ' ministrative -posittpiis usitib ths pn next, meeting when L^kmm.twld pj. . be there, c. t
!j I' .tv any 'We need the superirtfendentiV* , la recomoltndation becausehe'*' on Aug 16. 1995. said the board wortang with that oil a day-fthday*' directed Hickman Io submit ibT basis, Mlnftr Said-.o .'-> -.u-r -v written docusnenialiofl to the , J , . tohooi board to establish how each of the questioned expenditures wait incurred in the direct pfo.ntiance of his yob as superintendent. During that same meeting, Hickman was directed to submit board, thert the school board High school ''principal Tenf' agrees to reduce the otitsfandrng ' Murry told the board it had ap i_ >. a 1. . - _____________it MsnaAJ>( I'ha^ balance owed by the superintend- proved' S Mfcndhf the < .t..r facul^ did dtM appnr^.'* Ar ent ..according to that mect- ings minutes. After Monday nights meeting, The board decided, to t>ble>*n documentation on job-related Minor said, You do the iob approwmg the Cal odatuntd thej see the revised version. * SKStK!John w. Walker, P.yV. Ati'iiiinhy At Law 17 Broadway Ijjtle Kock. Arkansas Tam
TeI.EPIKi.NE (5H1) 37 )-375.S h'AX (501) 371-1137 RB M .i A AS MJG b 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASIHNOTON MARK IHiRNKITK ADSTLN PORTER. JR. August 3, 1993 Oitice o( Desegregation Monitoring Mr. John Moore President Little Rock Board of Directors 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 Re: John Hickman Dear Mr. Moore: I am in receipt of Mr. Spencer Robinson's opinion regarding continuation of the Hickman matter. Before the Board considers the matter, I wish to be heard by the full Board at a public meeting. At that time I would like to present arguments contrary to those presented by the District's counsel. I also wish to remind the Board that this matter is of great public interest, Mr. Hickman's hearing was discontinued by the Board during the school term largely due to the several month hospitalization of a board member and that Mr. Hickman has not had an opportunity to refute libelous and slanderous charges in public forum. a bias by the I also wish to remind the Board of our charges of administration. this perspective. hearing officer which favored the school Whether true or not, the opinion gives credence to Under the circumstances, to stop the hearing now and to deny further hearing on the request made pursuant to A.C.A. 6-17-1509, employer. a message is sent to other employees by allowing the hearing to be aborted. Moreover, the District's casts the District in a posture of being an unfair Moreover, stewardship of its economic resources will also be brought into issue before the District Court. more I am sending a copy of A.C.A. 6-17-1509 to you for each board member's consideration. Sincerely, 6Joi 1 Jc/nn W. VJalker Joli JWW:lpI.' G-17-1509 KDIHWI'ION 294 2d '5 'iSJ 'll '* ^*1 I < i rs - )| I* iijS i!
s 1 'lii! r Ml. : I l.li 1' i '11 { oBij iiii) bill with the reasana lor. the recannnend.al inn of lei inination in accordance wilh I be 'I'eacher Fair Dismissal Act at lirDI. ami Ihe act required that a prabalianarv tact, one at termination
therel'ore since Ihe letter did iiel state that a hearing was available Ie (lie .assistant principal, and Ihe assistant principal did not receive the liavh('i- be gieea !( stalciiivnl hI iIh grouinls ('ill' terminal ioa bal anl ba- aa renewal, the inclusion al Ihe which were made an Ihe advice counsel indicated that the lelli r rea.tns el lee,'ll I in linielv hearing on lit Ihe lellcr, Ihe : I be racial a|)pearance ir.Kislant principal did nal receive due precess. Rogers V. Masem, 7,S.q l''.2(l I'.J.Sft nsih Cir. 1985' (decision miller priai lawi G-17-1509. Hearing. (a) A teacher who ri'ceives o nolice ol recommended leiinination oi nonrenewal may (ile a wrilb'ii request with the board of directors of t.be district for a hearing. (b) Written request for n heuring shull be seiit by certified or legis- tered mail to the president of the biuud. with n copy to the supei inten- dent, or may be delivered in person to each ol Ibem by the teacher, within thirty (30) days after the written notice ol proposed termination r nonrenewal is received by the teacher. , , ,, (c) Upon receipt of a request for a hearing, the board shall grant a hearing in accordance with the following provisions: (1) The hearing shall take place not les.s than I.ve '5 _ - ten (10) days after the written reipiest lui except that the teacher and board may, in writing, agree to a postponement of the hearing to a later date
. i i,n (2) The hearing shall be private unless the teacher or the boaid shall or 1'1 VC 15) nor more Llian g.s been served on the board. request that the hearing be public
(3) The teacher and the board may be represented by representa- lives of their choosing
(4) It shall not be necessary that a full record of the proceedings at the hearing be made and preserved unless
(A) The board shall elect to make and preserve a hearing at its own expense, in which event a copy shall be furnished the teacher, upon request
without cost to the teacher
(B) A written request is filed with the board by the teacher at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time set (or the hearing, in which event the board shall make and preserve, at iLs own expense, a record of the hearing, and shall furnish a transcript to the teacher record of the I Di Ki U I'll te (b .4 Si A A n< e< tt ii U c ti tl P tl t- 1 h P t without cost. History. Acts 198.3, No. 9.3(i, 9
A.S.A. 1947, 80-1266.8. KESICARCH REFERENCES Ark, L. Rev. Watkins, Open Meetings Under the Arkansas Ercedeni of Information Act, 38 Ark. b. Rev. 2(i8. s? 1 iSj! a j'ffi 'Si' \ ! W 'f I.'?'! 9' *TSP'r^O}S RiJOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINCTON MARK BHP.NHTE AUSTIN PORTER. .Hi. .John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 172P.
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.