Incentive Schools: Court filings

1 FILED .. ,lis DISTRICT COURT -aSi-:RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 "I J990 CARL H. bhhj^TS/CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR-Sv: ' 1 - f Z f
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82~866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion from Knight Intervenors seeking court approval of employmen' compensation and duration provisions of an agreement regarding incentive schools. This case is currently on appeal. Until the Court of Appeals issues its decision. this Court will not either approve or disapprove programs regarding incentive schools. Unless so ordered by the Court of Appeals, this Court will not approve or disapprove a school district's employment contracts. The Court denies the motion. DATED this 27th day of July, 1990. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN compliance with rule 33 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP OW BY i I FILE COPY I United States District Court for the Eastern District Arkansas July 27, 1990 mtmp * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * * Re: 4:82-CV-00866 True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following: Cliristopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Walter A. Paulson II, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 M. Samuel Jones III, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Philip K. Lyon, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. Tcby Tower, Suite 3400 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. Tcby Tower, Suite 3400 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Tim C. Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 H. William Allen, Esq. H. William Allen, P.C. 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201-3617 Stephen L. Curry, Esq. Ivester, Skinner & CampSuite 1200 111 Center Stree- Little Rock, AR ) 72201-2413 ) Samuel A. Perroni, Esq. Perroni, Rauls & Looney The Koger Center Drive, Ste. 215 10810 Executive Center Drive Little Rock, AR 72211-4354 William H. Trice III, Esq. Howell, Price, Trice, Basham & Hope 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2405 Robert C. Lowry, Esq. Mitchell & Lowry 905 Boyle Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3799 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Mitchell & Roachell 1014 W. Third St. P.O. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Otis H. Storey III, Esq. Hoover, Jacobs & Storey 111 Center Street Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-3521 John T. Lavey, Esq. Lavey, Harmon & Burnett 904 W. Second St. P.O. Box 2657 Little Rock, AR 72203-2657 9 t Carl R. Brents, Clerk Date: BY: "cto (as in the case intervenors. ''J F./t-d Jtc. ZZ^ of other districts' plans) by the Joshua The plan was submitted in two volumes, one on January 31, 1989, 7 App. 1514-1703, and one on March 23, 1989, 10 App. 2196-2343. We confine our description of the plan to those features most relevant to the issues on appeal. Eight of the district's 31 non-magnet elementary schools, would be designated "Incentive Schools. II They would be, at least initially, all black. or virtually so. These schools would receive special compensatory- education programs and markedly increased amounts of money. In fact, they would receive "two times the level [of funding] for the Elementary Academies" in LRSD. 8 App. 1722. The reference to II Elementary Academies" describes 22 of the remaining 23^ elementary schools. These schools would have projected student ratios of between 50 and 62 per cent, black. Any white student could elect to attend an Incentive School, 10 App. 2199-200, and any student (and the reference here is principally to black students) living in an Incentive School attendance area could opt to attend one of the Elementary Academies, id. at 2199. The plan included a detailed and voluminous description of the kind of programs that would take place at the Incentive Schools. 10 App. 2233-334. A salient feature of these schools would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. Id. at 2230. In addition to the individual desegregation plans submitted for each of the three districts. the parties submitted, on February 15, 1989, an II Inbsrdistrict Desegregation Plan." 8 App. 1716-1805. Again, we state those provisions of the Plan with particular relevance to the issues presently on appeal. Students were given the option to transfer from one district to another, with transportation at the expense of the State, if the transfers would promote desegregation. 8 App. 1735. Following our en banc decision in 1985, the parties had by stipulation established six school. ^One elementary school. 10 App. 2229. Romine, would be an interdistrict -26-I Jpvw LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's automatic" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court IS mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- H year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-J: JUL OHfes De
.' pTI
n5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER filed U S. OISTRfCT COURT -----------vwuni eastern DISTRW ARKANSAS JUL 10 1992 CARL By--J. ' Sf^NTS, CLERK DEP PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On June 5, 1992, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM] filed its 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. The parties filed no objections, and on June 3 0 and July 1, 1992, the Court held hearings to discuss the report. No objections to the report were raised in the hearings. The Court hereby adopts the recommendations of the ODM contained in the Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. These recommendations, which are made in a spirit of support, should help the Little Rock School District achieve the goals of the desegregation plan. fZ- DATED this /() day of July, 1992. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUD( JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP N___7:^ BY Br 1 > > Vvsd f AUG 4 1593 IN THE UNITED STATES .DISTRICT.. COURT EASTERN DISTRICT''OF' ARKANSAS- Office Ct Desegrega'Jon Monitcti:!'?. WESTERN Diy.ISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF FINDING OF FACT OR CONCLUSION OF LAW AND MOTION FOR RULING ON REQUEST THAT INCENTIVE SCHOOL BENEFITS INCLUDING SCHOLARSHIP BENEFITS FOLLOW THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL CHILDREN The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for correction of finding of fact or conclusion of law and for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship commitments to incentive school children follow the incentive school children upon their reassignment to another virtually all black, school, to wit, the new King Elementary School. 1. The Court indicates that Joshua did not object to the Little Rock survey on a timely basis, i.e., within five days, and therefore, Joshua cannot complain about the manner in which the survey was carried out and/or interpreted and implemented. Joshua did not object to the survey at all before the fact. It only objected after the fact to the good faith of the defendants in the manner in which they conducted the survey and to the conclusion that students who did not affirmatively respond to attend Ish were to be regarded as affirmatively choosing or electing to attend King. Our position was that it was just as likely that the non-respondents would attend Ish in the same proportion as the respondents as it was for the district to conclude that all of the non-respondents would elect to attend King. We respectfully submit that no citation of authority is needed for that proposition. 2 . The Status Report of the district could not have been objected to until it was issued. The Status Report was filed on July 16, 1993. Our objection was to the manner in which the survey was conducted. We note that in the Affidavit from Ms. Marie Parker the district sets forth five separate events for which there are no dates other than June, 1993 and four separate dates for which there are no dates other than July, 1993. The absence of dates by the district is an indication that the district did not know when it did certain things or perhaps that it did not do them. It is for this reason. inter alia. that we requested a hearing. Our objection was not ripe until after the survey results were in and after the district submitted its Status Report if we had no objection to the announced process. What the Court appears to be saying is that if we do not object to the process on the front end, we cannot complain about the results on the back end. Denial of equal protection is the effect of the result of the process. 3. The Court has yet to rule upon our repeated requests for settlement plan implementation of the special benefits which were designed to flow to the Ish children because of its segregated character. The Court still does not rule. The Court has consistently ruled, however, and the evidence shows that the Little Rock School District has been absolutely derelict in seeking tochildren with benefits promised by the plan. The Court's ruling in closing Ish and in assigning the Ish children to another racially identifiable school, King, albeit a new school, is contrary to the settlement plan. . 4. The authority for the motions in this case is the Desegregation Plan itself and the various rulings of the Court of Appeals herein. 949 F.2d. 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). The fine tuning suggestions of the plan or of the Court of Appeals ruling are inapposite under the circumstances herein because the district itself IS responsible for the failure of desegregation and integration of Ish by its utter failure to enhance Ish and to provide it with the necessary "incentives." The Court thus appears to reward the wrongdoer and to punish the children by the challenged school closure. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the district court to modify its opinion herein by rescinding its order to close the Ish incentive school. In the absence of modification. the Court is requested to issue an Order requiring that all incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children wherever they may be assigned. Moreover, in the event that King opens as a racially identifiable school, Joshua further requests that it become an incentive school so that all children therein will have the benefit of incentive school programs including the promised scholarships. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORSBy: I ^ohn W. Walker, Bar #64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record by U.S. Mail on this 2nd day of August, 1993. / C (. V. Ac/. John W. Walker / / t. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlICT? COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' WESTERN DIVISION'.- ... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. a I PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY The authorities for the motion filed herewith are: The Desegregation Plans of the district
2. The Court of Appeals opinions approving the settlement plans herein. See 949 F.2d. 253 (8th Cir. 1991)
and The various Opinions and Orders of this Court finding the Little Rock. School District to be out of compliance with the Desegregation Plan. The proceeding before the court is an implementation one. We submit that no separate authority is required in implementation - the plan itself is the authority. Where the distric defaults in 1. 3 . its duty, the court is required to act to the benefit of the black. children herein. These children are not being benefitted by having their incentive school benefits withdrawn on the one hand and by their concomitant assignment to another virtually all black school on the other hand. (King will probably open as an eighty per cent or more black school
it will thus be racially identifiable) Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORSL By: John W. Walker, Bar #64046 (JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record by U.S. Mail on this 2nd, .day of August, 1993. John'W. Walker IMAR-21-94 MON 15:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 19 (995 G. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS n V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. defendants i JOSHUA REQUESTS OF THE COURT REGARDING THE BUDGET PROCESS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request to address the following issues as it proceeds to consider the budget process before the Court. 1. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine that the District is required to double fund the incentive schools
that pursuant to the double funding the Dstrict is required to provide scholarship incentives and awards to students who attend or have attended those schools since the settlement plan
and to provide training and educational opportunities related to potential placement in teaching positions in the District to black parents and others who are placed as aides. 2. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine whether Joshua counsel are . entitled to . be compensated for participating in the various proceedings required by the Court in the same manner as counsel for the respective districts are compensated. 3. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine whether incentive school personnel who are required to work extended day and extended year programs are entitled to extra 4MAR-21-94 MON 15:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 compensation for that extra work. 4 . Joshua specifically requests that the Court determine whether the ish children are entitled to receive all their promised incentive school benefits when they attend King Elementary School. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ar (501) 374-3759 72206 of of )(X John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker,hereby certify that a true and correctjcopy foregoing document has been hand-delivered on this /^:?dav C&'f- . 1993. the foregoi ---1 John W. WalkerDate: Ann [St Bill 'Ob Connie Horace inda Melissa Margie Polly Return to: RECEIVED DC 2 0 1993 OKico oi Du:3grsyation fZonionAa IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER } ,'y PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On December 9, 1993, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring filed a report on the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") incentive schools. A hearing on the incentive schools is hereby-scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Friday, January 14, 1994, and continuing on Tuesday, January 18, 1994 if necessary. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearing. and incentive school principals are encouraged to attend. If parties wish to present any written materials that they anticipate the Court will have read prior to the hearing, they must be delivered to the Court no later than January 7, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this of December 1993. JUDGE . HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON obcKET SHEET UN GOiMFLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 7C{a) FRCP BY 2 0 4 8 aS T X. FBIDAY, ELDBEDGE & CLABK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P. A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P. A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P. A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P. A. JOE D. BELL. P. A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P. A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P. A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P. A. H. T. LARZELERE. P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P. A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P. A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P. A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P. A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III. P. A. LARRY W. BURKS. P. A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P, A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P. A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P. A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P. A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P. A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P. A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P. A. DONALD M. BACON, P. A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P. A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P. A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P. A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P. A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P. A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P. A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P- P- LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P. A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P. A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P. A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P. A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone 501-376-2011 Fax No. 5OI-376-2ia7 December 21, 1993 is ci !. .J*-.-.. is- DEC 2 2 1993 MICHAEL S. MOORE. P. A. DIANE $. MACKEY, P. A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P. A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P. A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P. A. CLVDE -TAB" TURNER. P. A. CALVIN J. MALL. P. A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P. A. JERRV L. MALONE. P. A. M. OAYLE CORLEY. P. A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P. A. J. LEE BROWN. P. A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P. A. M. CHARLES OSCHWEND. JR.. P. HARRY A. LIOMT. P. A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P. A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P. A GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEPFREY M. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. QAAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA a. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES aA22:EL R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN Ofic3 of Cessgregation Monitoring COUNSeL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P. B. S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P. A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P. A. wwRrrews oircct no. Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 370-1553 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD/Incentive School Hearings Dear Dr. Williams: Enclosed please find a file-marked copy of an Order entered by Judge Wright on Friday, December 17, 1993. Please take notice that this Order sets a hearing regarding the LRSD Incentive Schools for Friday, January 14 and Tuesday, January 18, 1994. this on your schedule to be in attendance. Please place By copy of this letter, I am requesting that all members of the LRSD Board of Directors make the necessary arrangements to be present on both days. I am also sending a copy of this letter and Order to the principals of Stephens, Garland, Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Mitchell Incentive Schools. It is my request that they also make the necessary arrangements to be available to attend this hearing. However, I do hereby request that they make contact with you and me to deteirmine whether or not they should actually attend. It is my request that each incentive school principal and each LRSD administrator receiving this letter review the incentive school report to determine their various areas of responsibility. Those problems identified by the monitors should be considered and any documentation or explanation available should be pulled wil-pcM.UDr. Henry Williams, Superintendent December 21, 1993 Page 2 together for review prior to court. It is my suggestion that we hold a meeting no later than Thursday, January 6, 1994, for purposes of determining our course of action and preparing for the hearing. Thereafter, we should then have sufficient time to pull the necessary information together and meet again on Wednesday, January 12, 1994. I have reserved the entire day on both days. Please let me know what time is most convenient. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely. Jerry L. Malone JLM/mr enc. cc: LRSD Board of Directors Estelle Mathis Sterling Ingram Dr. RUss Mayo Mark Milhollen Brady Gadberry wU-pCM.It p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF / vs. No. LR-C-82-866 7^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On December 9, 1993, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring filed a report on the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") incentive schools. A hearing on the incentive schools is hereby scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Friday, January 14, 1994, and continuing on Tuesday, January 18, 1994 if necessary. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearing, and incentive school principals are encouraged to attend. If parties wish to present any written materials that they anticipate the Court will have read prior to the hearing, they must be delivered to the Court no later than January 7, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this ay of December 1993. ED STATES DIST :t judge . HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON obCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7C(a) FRCP OS' J 0-17-$3 BY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER The hearing on the incentive schools that scheduled for January 14, 1994, immediately following the FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 0 4 1994 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK Qy:__ts PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS is currently is hereby rescheduled to begin conclusion of the racial balance hearings, which are scheduled for January 25 and 26, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this '/ day of January 1994. TATES CT JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEBT IN OOMPIIWCE WIT! I RULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP TN JAf'ICEWr BY 2 0 6 2 E received JAN 5 1 1994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegrogation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOINT NOTICE OF STIPULATION The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD" or "District"), and the Joshua Intervenors for their Joint Notice of Stipulation, state: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a stipulation agreed upon by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Joshua Intervenors, through their counsel, have joined in the filing of this stipulation. WHEREFORE, Little Rock School District and Joshua Intervenors submit this Joint Notice of Stipulation and request all other legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled.Joint Notice of Stipulation January 31, 1994 Page 2 Respectfully Submitted FRIDAY, ELDREDGE -& CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By
Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Stipulation has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on January otherwise indicated: 31, 1994, upon the following, except as Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone STIPULATION The LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors stipulate that some black students who live in Incentive School Attendance Zones were not allowed to attend Incentive Schools by the LRSD during the past school year and this year. The parents of some of those black students were advised that because the LRSD was holding seats for white students, the LRSD could not allow them to enroll in an Incentive School program that was above the racial balance goal established in the Court-approved desegregation plans. However, all of these seats were not filled by white students and have not yet been offered to these black children. The LRSD has been made aware of the problem and, as of August 1993, has taken, or will hereafter take, steps to correct it in the manner contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Further the LRSD will otherwise continue to comply with its obligations as set out in that Agreement. The LRSD is mindful of the Court's requirement that it will require the LRSD to establish that its vigorous recruitment efforts have failed before those seats can be released in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Exhibit 1Stipulation Page 2 The parties, LRSD and Joshua, also stipulate the admission into evidence the following exhibits: 1. Addendum to Exhibit Number 208, Joshua's LRSD Elementary Schools (Incentive Schools) Monitoring Report, 1990-91
2. Exhibit Number 209, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity, June 23, 1993, with Addendum pages 214 through 243
3. Exhibit Number 210, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity Monitoring Report, May 28, 1992, with Addendum pages 000161 through 000189
4. Exhibit Number 234, letter from Joy Springer to Bennie Smith dated April 17, 1992, with attached memo to Dr. Ruth Steele from LRSD Bi-Racial Advisory Committee. The LRSD does not, by agreeing to the admission of these documents into evidence, waive its right to challenge or otherwise contest the factual findings or assertions contained in the Joshua Monitoring Reports or other documents being admitted hereby
those rights are specifically and expressly reserved.Stipulation Page 3 Dated this 7^ day of January, 1994. Ji W. Walker orney for Joshua Intervenors Jerry L. Malone Attorney for LRSD \ < 1 - f 3-96 MOH-.I3:54 r fe-. I I I. li h F t' R- SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 ntcD PASTERN Y.l%TaicV may 5 I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRUA'WESm?cCORMACK CLERK eastern district of ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ARf<^5AS DE?CLt-'r, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of - regarding ths Incentive Schools, which among other things de for the designation of a well-qualified educate. independent of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), to direct the effort of employees of the LRSD to comply with* the provisions ci the settlement concerning the incentive schools. The orders ought by Joshua are described in full at the end of this motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum
the allegatfbns set forth in the motion.
monitoring reports prepared . and disseminated by the Joshua Intervenors and the office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)
statement by this court evidencing the LRSDa-inadequate implementation of the relevant portions of the plan
and other aspects of the record of th
>*1 a?. 3-96 MON 13:55 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 case. Joshua makes the following allegations
1) LRSD voluntarily agreed in the court-approved settlement in this case to provide well-funded, exemi^ary educational programs at seven schools located in the black community in the LRSD, to be know as the "incentive schools. >1 This element of the agreement, bottomed upon the commitment to "double funding: of these schools, had (and has) multiple purposes: first, to attract white students to these schools voluntarily
second, to promote academic excellence and to help compensate the victims of segregation
and third, to promote equity and equality by increasing the number of instances in which desegregation occurs by white students attending schools in the African American community. See LRSD Plan, April 29, 1992, at 149. 2) As shown in detail in paragraph (4) of this motion. officials and employees of the LRSD have continued to implement a large number of the features of their own plan regarding the incentive schools in a grossly inadequate manner. Indeed, there is evidence that the quality of implementation declined in more recent times. See ODM, 5/l"//95, at 33-36, 45-48. 3) The incentive schools are (and have been) racially segregated (e.g., ODM, 5/17/95, at 45), an entirely preoictaole result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and There are now five incentive schools, following the closing of the Ish and Stephens schools. 2 1 I jI J!!N- 3-96 MON 13:55 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 the nature of the deficiencies (e.g., deficient staff and staff desegregation
deficient upkeep of facilities
deficient recruitment
deficient activation of programs
deficient activation of themes and approach to multicultural education
deficient parental involvement). 4) The elements of the plan which the LRSD defendants have implemented in a grossly inadequate manner include, hut are not limited to, the following: a) the provisions on upkeep of facilities
see ODM report, 6/5/92, surom, at 40-43
ODM report, 12/9/93, at 35-38
ODM report a 12/21/94, at 35-36
ODM report 5/17/95, at 13-17
Joshua Report, ii! s 6/5/92 at 174, 177-78
I I i 1 'J I i= I It b) the provisions on steps to recruit desegregated student bodies
see ODM report 3/11/94, at 11
ODM report 12/21/94 at 91- 92
ODM report 5/17/95, at 67-68
Joshua report, 6/91 at 1 (Recruitment)
Joshua report 6/5/92 at 166, 171, 174, 177, 181, 183, 198
Joshua report 6/27/93 at 233, 236, 242
c) the provisions for staff desegregation
see ODM report 6/5/92, surom. at 6
ODM report 12/9/93, at 11-12
ODM report I 12/21/94, at 12-13
ODM report, 5/10/96, at 11-12 (including fact that four of five schools had one race staff at early childhood level)
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 162,185
d) the provisions for selecting and retaining high quarity faculties
see ODM report, 5/10/92, at 6-8
see also id., at 9-10 (selection of inexperienced principals and turnover of principals 3 ao JUN- 3-96 MON 13:56 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 in incsntive schools)
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2 (Staffing)
Joshua report, 6/27/93 at 216
e) the provisions for integrating of themes in school programs
see ODM report, 12/9/93, at 47
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 4 6
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 35
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 164, 182
I I f) the provisions for multicultural education
see ODM report, 6/25/92, s'jrun at 12
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 64
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 39-40, 41-47
Joshua report, 6/91 at 1 (curriculum)
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 214,222
6/27/93 at 214, 226, 231, 235, 237, 240
oshua report. g) the provisions on the foreign language program
report, 6/5/92, summ at 18
ODM report, 12/9/93 at 50
see ODM ("deplorable state")
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 48
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 22-23
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 164,172,175,179,182,187
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 229
h) the provisions on science education
see ODM report. 6/5/92, summ. at 14 (equipment availability varies)
ODM, 12/9/93, at 46, 49
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 21-22, 34
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 168, 172, 187
summ. i) the provisions for field trips
see ODM report, 6/4/92, at 19
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 34 (number diminished)
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228
4 1 JB JUN- 3-96 MON 13:56 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 05 j) the provisions for the extended day prograin
see ODM report, 12/21/94, at 56 (documentation)
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 27-28
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)
Joshua report, 6/5/92,, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228
k) the provisions for the Saturday program
see ODM report. 12/21/94, at 57-60
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 29-30, 34 ("The extended week program has evolved to little more than a monthly field trip...)
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228
1) the provisions of the extended year program
see ODM report, 6/5/92, sumiti at 24-25
ODM report, 12/9/93, at 67-68
ODM, 12/21/94, at 61-62, 64-65 ("The district treats the incentive schools summer program like a necessary evil rather than a wonderful opportunity.")
ODM, 12/1/95, at 11-12
Joshua report, 6/91 at 1-2 (General Concerns), 2-3 (Staffing)
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 226
m) the provisions for individual student profiles
see ODM report, 12/9/93, 68-89, 80-85
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 69-70
ODM, 5/17/95, 30-31
see also re SEPs, ODM report, 12/21/94, at 64
ODM, 12/1/95, at 4
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2 (SEPs)
Joshua report. 6/5/92, at 162, 173, 176, 180, 183, 187-88
Joshua report. 6/27/93, at 216, 224
n) the provisions on student and parent involvement in 5JUN- 3-96 HON 13:57 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 developing discipline policies
see ODM report, 12/21/94, at 25- 29
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 17, 11
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 169, 173, 179
o) the provisions on parent centers
summ. see ODMrepcrt, 6/5/92, at 37
ODM report, 12/9/93, at 95
ODM, 12/21/94, at 74-77
ODM, 5/17/5, at 59-60
Joshua report, 6/91, at 1 (Parent Involvement)
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 170-71
p) the provision on parents' signing homework
see ODM report, r) 6/5/92, summ. at 35
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 82 the provisions on the use of social workers
see ODM report 12/21/94, at 72
ODM report 5/17/95, at 31-32
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 162, 171, 174, 177, 184
s) The provisions on home visits
see ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 34
ODM report, 12/9/93, at 102
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 80-81
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 60. 5) Representatives of the LRSD have been informed of these shortcomings, repeatedly, by Joshua intervenors, the ODM, and this court. Their continuing deficient perforrrtance demonstrates that they are either unwilling or unable to implement the features of the plan concerning the Incentive Schools in a satisfactory manner. See, for example, citations to Joshua and ODM reports set forth above and the statement of the court dated March 19, 1993. 6) In approving the settlement, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote as follows regarding the Incentive 6 9ERJUN- 3-96 MON 13:57 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 Schools and the authority and the responsibility of this court: It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools and it will be the job -of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties [Little do not live up to their commitments. 7) Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 921 f.2d 1371, 1386 (1990)
see also id., 921 F.2d at 1394, para. 8.]. In view of the relevant circumstances, this court has the responsibility and the authority to enter an order providing for the designation of a well-qualified educator, independent of the LRSD/ to direct the Incentive School program. This court also had the responsibility and the authority to enter the additional related relief requested in this motion. 6) Excerpts from the ODM Report regarding the Incentive Schools, dated May 17, 1995, provide clear evidence of the need for the relief sought in this motion by the Joshua. Intervenors. This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM Incentive Schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of Incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brand- new principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation... [details re particular prograir.s omitted] [At 34] 7JUN- 3-96 MON 13:58 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 08 In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable and correctable. The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed co serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout, Instead, too many aspects of these schools serve as an object lesson that promises made, but not kept. are meaningless. Successfully implementing the incentive School programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership, competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-quality centers of learning they i^re pledged to be? [At 36
emphasis added] 9) The Incentive School portion of the court-approved settlement can not be deemed a failure
its implementation in a meaningful manner has never been attempted. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court enter orders providing relief regarding the Incentive Schools portion of the court-approved settlement consistent with the following principles
a) there shall be a director of the Incentive Schools program, independent of the LRSD, who has final authority for (i) the adoption of any subsidiary policies necessary to implement the remedy, and (ii) the oversight, including the direction, of all district employees and agents engaged in the implementation of the incentive school remedies
b) the director shall be selected by ODM in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors
c) the director shall be paid by the LRSD at a rate 85 JUN- 3-96 NON 13:58 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 suggested by ODM, subject to the approval of the court
d) the LRSD shall provide the director an office and necessary support as designated by the director
e) all officials, employees, and agents of the LRSD shall cooperate with the director in the fulfillment of his/her responsibilities
f) the director shall have the right to communicate with and call any problem to the attention of ODM, the Joshua Intervenors, and/or the court (with notice to the parties)
while the director shall be encouraged to attempt to resolve any problem(s) with officials or employees of the LRSD before such communication, the taking of this step shall be in his/her discretion
g) the director shall make periodic reports regarding I implementation of the Incentive Schools features of the settlement, and any barriers to strong implementation
h) the court acting sua sponte, at the request of the director, or on the motion of a party, not including NLRSD or PCSSD, may address any problems raised, and may amend or supplement its special orders regarding the Incentive Schools, including by terminating the position of director when there are grounds to find that the position is no longer needed
provided that the court shall provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard prior to any such amendment or supplementation of its orders
and 9BH JUN- 3-96 MON 13:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 10 i) the entry of such other and further relief as the needs of justice may require. Respectfully submitted, J '. 5 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3738 i By:__ Jb W. Walker - #64046 iiI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this 31st day of May, 1996. 7 1 10 :w2^*iZii2js2sfflSS2SaSMHH '1 JUN- 3-96 MON 13:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 ,T usdieo fb]y I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUHT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS In! CL WESTERN DIVISION CE? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, PLAIxN'TiFFS y. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFExNDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR motion for relief REGARDING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for relief concerning the Incentive Schools. The LRSD defendants have had a full opportunity to implement the court-approved provisions concerning the Incentive Schools in a reasonable competent and adequate manner
they have failed miserably, patient. The Court and the Joshua Intervenors have .been The time has come when other approaches must be tried. Joshua's motion, including its record references established, inter alia, the following: i) are The incentive school provisions of the settlement a critically important element of the court-ordered agreement. ii) The LRSD defendants have for a lengthy period implemented the incentive school features of the settlement in a grossly inadequate manner, despite repeated notice of the shortcomings in their performances, and many recommendations for curative actions. iii) Ths LRSD defendants are in default with regard to their obligations to implement the incentive school remedies in a proper manner
and there is no reasonable prospect of the.ir curing that default absent extra-JUN- 3-96 MON 14:00 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 12 ordinary intervention by the court. The authorities set forth in this memorandum establish that the court has the responsibility to approve steps reasonable likely to sure LRSD defendants' default
and that the Joshua Intervenors seek, in their motion, appropriate relief. The time to implement these important remedies in a meaningful manner has arrived. The relief sought is supported by the following precedents. a) See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special gchool District. 921 F,2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990) ("It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to- - and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schoolsand it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties o not live up to their commitments.")
id., at 1394 ("The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require,") b) See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15, 16 (1971) (: "if school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under these holdings, judicial authority may be invoked. Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a districtJUN- 3-96 NON 14:00 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 13 court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable, remedies, a district court had broad power to fashion ! a remedy that will assure a unitary school 71 system. c) See Local 28, .ee 473 U.S. 421 (1986) (after finding that the union and the joint apprenticeship committee had engaged in a widespread pattern of racial discrimination in employment which a number of prior court decrees had failed to abate, the district court entered remedial orders, including appointment of an If administrator"
see 401 F. Supp,. 467, 489-92 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)
the Supreme Court upheld this remedy "in light of the difficult inherent in monitoring compliance with the court's orders, established record of resistance to especially petitioners' prior state and federal orders...
it characterized the administrator as having "broad powers to oversee petitioners' membership practices," which "may substantially Interfere with petitioners' membership as a 11 necessary [step] to put an end to s I 1 i petitioners' discriminatory ways", see 478 U.S. at 481-82
an operations.. ., " earlier Court of Appeals opinion noted that the administrator "will serve as the superior of the [Joint Apprenticeship Committee] representatives" I) i on the committee concerning apprenticeship
see 532 F.2d at 830), d) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Local 542, 619 F. Supp., 1273, 127Z-80 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (where union has failed after five IJUN- 3-96 NON 14:01 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 14 I purpose of [the] Order'
the membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States
specific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and I I I I I i educational programs, drafting a fair housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Information and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster an interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for low-income housing development. f) Turner v Goolsby. 225 F. Supp 724 (S.D. Ga. 196S) (3- I I judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring districts, including by providing of bus transportation and then closed the one formerly white school as unneeded
this left the 87 black pupils who has chosen to attend the school without a desegregated i I I 355 S 3* option
the court placed the system in receivership, designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver "operate the schools...," and charged him with the obligation "to submit a plan..., whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded" (at 730)
thereafter, the receiver arranged for the interested black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties
and investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction
the receiver was discharged when the initial system IJUN- 3-96 MON 14:01 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 15 years to operate hiring hall in a racially nondiscriminatory manner, and is in contempt of orders re "work levels for minorities" court appoints "Hiring Hall Monitor," pursuant to Rule 53, Fed. R. Civ. Procedure, , "directly responsible to the court, who will be given the full authority to operate and oversee all features of the hiring hall"
the monitor may "appoint hiring hall leaders to run the day-to-day operations in the hiring halls d * *" in which the monitor will not be located
where union is in contempt of orders that it "present to the court for approval" valid, job-related criteria for admission to the union for each method of entry through which membership can be attained...," court appoints an expert to do this work, with his fee to be paid by the union). e) United States v city of arma .OhiO/ 504 F. Supp. 913, 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed, 661 F.2d. 562,577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in psrt the establishment of a "Fair Housing Committee:" "within [the] city government"
thi.s fhc was to 11 to operate as the primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing remedial plan... [and} to ensure that, the provisions of [the} order [were] fully complied with...", "[membership on the FHC] shall consist of Parma citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the aJUN- 3-96 HON 14:02 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 16 agreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966-67). s' 9) M,Ogg,an V McDonough, 540 F. 2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976), denied, 429 U.S, cert. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of extreme breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff, and overall pattern of resistance by school board
initial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which th^j school w&s loc3ts<i/ thGircaftGir, th distirict^s supfiX'intsnd.siit wss the x'ccsivGx*
the receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of "all faculty and educational personnel" to select a staff "fit for the purposes of desegregation"
the receiver reported directly to the district court). h) Perez y. Boston Housing Authority. 400 N.E. 2d. 1231 I I I J I I (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing
court placed the Boston housing Authority in receivership
the orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she "shall have the authority, to administer, manage, and operate the BHA
he/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that any be necessary or appropriate
upon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded" [at 1245].). i! JS i) The Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit has twice cited wirh approval the opinion in Morgan v McDonough. S supra in jsubJissBm1 juN- 36 NON 14:02 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 17 which the creation of a receivership to operate a high school wa approved. See Uttle , Rpck_scho.ol District v Pulaski
ounty 5 .Sp,eciai-^s^hooi pi^rlct, sii t.2d 1295, 1319 (3th cir. 1983) cited in support of authority of district court to create 1 a citizen monitoring committee)
Omaha. Indemnity Co^y_.Wining, 949 F.2d 235, 239 (Sth Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). CONCLUS.XON As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors, Moreover, any suggestion by the Little Rock School District that these principles do not apply because of th settlement must be rejected. As our citations to ths opinion j Si approving ths settlement demonstrate, the Court of Appeals st expressly that this court retained authority with the settLex^nt. - to insure compliance Respectfully submitted, John W.-Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 -^1 By: 72206 ^^^/^ohn W. Walker #6404$ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a via t.s, mail to all counsel of record 1996. Copy of the foregoing was sent on this 31st day of'May, 1: i . /' > . i J 1 FILED east'^eb^n aaassAs 0, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTy - EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WflI J-ifi ]996 Ottice WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. By
, PLAINTIFFS utF cllh: V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET TkL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of orders regarding the Incentive Schools, which among other things provide for the designation of a well-qualified educator. independent of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), to direct the effort of employees of the LRSD to comply with the provisions of the settlement concerning the incentive schools. The orders sought by Joshua are described in full at the end of this motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum
the allegations set forth in the motion
monitoring reports prepared and disseminated by the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)
statement by this court evidencing the LRSD's inadequate implementation of the relevant portions of the plan
and other aspects of the record of this 1 case. Joshua makes the following allegations: 1) LRSD voluntarily agreed in the court-approved settlement in this case to provide well-funded, exemplary educational programs at seven schools located in the black community in the LRSD, to be know as the "incentive schools. 111 This element of the agreement, bottomed upon the commitment to "double funding: of these schools, had (and has) multiple purposes: first, to attract white students to these schools voluntarily
second, to promote academic excellence and to help compensate the victims of segregation
and third, to promote equity and equality by increasing the number of instances in which desegregation occurs by white students attending schools in the African 7\merican community. See LRSD Plan, April 29, 1992, at 149. 2) As shown in detail in paragraph (4) of this motion, officials and employees of the LRSD have continued to implement a large number of the features of their own plan regarding the incentive schools in a grossly inadequate manner. Indeed, there is evidence that the quality of implementation declined in more recent times. See ODM, 5/17/95, at 33-36, 45-48. 3) The incentive schools are (and have been) racially segregated (e.g., ODM, 5/17/95, at 4-5), an entirely predictable result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and There are now five incentive schools, following the closing of the Ish and Stephens schools. 1 2the nature of the deficiencies (e.g., deficient staff and staff desegregation
deficient upkeep of facilities
deficient recruitment
deficient activation of programs
deficient activation of themes and approach to multicultural education
deficient parental involvement). 4) The elements of the plan which the LRSD defendants have implemented in a grossly inadequate manner include, but are not limited to, the following: a) the provisions on upkeep of facilities
see ODM report. 6/5/92, summ. at 40-43
ODM report, 12/9/93, at 35-38
ODM report 12/21/94, at 35-36
ODM report 5/17/95, at 13-17
Joshua Report, 6/5/92 at 174, 177-78
b) the provisions on steps to recruit desegregated student bodies
see ODM report 3/11/94, at 11
ODM report 12/21/94 at 91- 92
ODM report 5/17/95, at 67-68
Joshua report, 6/91 at 1 (Recruitment)
Joshua report 6/5/92 at 166, 171, 174, 177, 181, 183, 188
Joshua report 6/27/93 at 233, 236, 242
c) the provisions for staff desegregation
see ODM report 6/5/92, summ. at 6
ODM report 12/9/93, at 11-12
ODM report 12/21/94, at 12-13
ODM report, 5/10/96, at 11-12 (including fact that four of five schools had one race staff at early childhood level)
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 162,185
d) the provisions for selecting and retaining high quality faculties
see ODM report, 5/10/92, at 6-8
see also ^., at 9-10 (selection of inexperienced principals and turnover of principals 3in incentive schools)
Joshua report/ 6/91 at 2 (Staffing)
Joshua report, 6/27/93 at 216
e) the provisions for integrating of themes in school programs
see ODM report, 12/9/93, at 47
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 46
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 35
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 164, 182
f) the provisions for multicultural education
see ODM report, 6/25/92, summ at 12
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 64
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 39-40, 41-47
Joshua report, 6/91 at 1 (curriculum)
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 214,222
Joshua report. 6/27/93 at 214, 226, 231, 235, 237, 240
g) the provisions on the foreign language program
see ODM report, 6/5/92, summ at 18
ODM report, 12/9/93 at 50
("deplorable state")
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 48
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 22-23
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 164,172,175,179,182,187
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 229
h) the provisions on science education
see ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 14 (equipment availability varies)
ODM, 12/9/93, at 46, 49
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 21-22, 34
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 168, 172, 187
summ. i) the provisions for field trips
see ODM report, 6/4/92, at 19
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 34 (number diminished)
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228
4j) the provisions for the extended day program
see ODM report, 12/21/94, at 56 (documentation)
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 27-28
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228
k) the provisions for the Saturday program
see ODM report, 12/21/94, at 57-60
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 29-30, 34 ("The extended week program has evolved to little more than a monthly field trip...")
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228
1) the provisions of the extended year program
see ODM report, 6/5/92, summ at 24-25
ODM report, 12/9/93, at 67-68
ODM, 12/21/94, at 61-62, 64-65 ("The district treats the incentive schools summer program like a necessary evil rather than a wonderful opportunity.")
ODM, 12/1/95, at 11-12
Joshua report, 6/91 at 1-2 (General Concerns), 2-3 (Staffing)
Joshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 226
m) the provisions for individual student profiles
see ODM report, 12/9/93, 68-89, 80-85
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 69-70
ODM, 5/17/95, 30-31
see also re SEPs, ODM report, 12/21/94, at 64
ODM, 12/1/95, at 4
Joshua report, 6/91 at 2 (SEPs)
Joshua report. 6/5/92, at 162, 173, 176, 180, 183, 187-88
Joshua report. 6/27/93, at 216, 224
n) the provisions on student and parent involvement in 5developing discipline policies
see ODM report, 12/21/94, at 25- 29
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 17, 11
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 169, 173, 179
o) the provisions on parent centers
see ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 37
ODM report, 12/9/93, at 95
ODM, 12/21/94, at 74-77
ODM, 5/17/5, at 59-60
Joshua report, 6/91, at 1 (Parent Involvement)
Joshua report, 6/5/92 at 170-71
p) the provision on parents' signing homework
see ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 35
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 82 r) the provisions on the use of social workers
see ODM report 12/21/94, at 72
ODM report 5/17/95, at 31-32
Joshua report, 6/5/92, at 162, 171, 174, 177, 184
s) The provisions on home visits
see ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 34
ODM report, 12/9/93, at 102
ODM report, 12/21/94, at 80-81
ODM report, 5/17/95, at 60. 5) Representatives of the LRSD have been informed of these shortcomings, repeatedly, by Joshua Intervenors, the ODM, and this court. Their continuing deficient performance demonstrates that they are either unwilling or unable to implement the features of the plan concerning the Incentive Schools in a satisfactory manner. See, for example, citations to Joshua and ODM reports set forth above and the statement of the court dated March 19, 1993. 6) In approving the settlement, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote as follows regarding the Incentive 6Schools and the authority and the responsibility of this court: 7) It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools and it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. [Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (1990)
see also id., 921 F.2d at 1394, para. 8.]. In view of the relevant circumstances, this court has the responsibility and the authority to enter an order providing for the designation of a well-qualified educator, independent of the LRSD, to direct the Incentive School program. This court also had the responsibility and the authority to enter the additional related relief requested in this motion. 8) Excerpts from the ODM Report regarding the Incentive Schools, dated May 17, 1995, provide clear evidence of the need for the relief sought in this motion by the Joshua Intervenors. This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM Incentive Schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of Incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brand- new principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation... [details re particular programs omitted] [At 34] 7In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of and correctable. time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed to serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout. serve as an Instead, too many aspects of these schools are meaningless. object lesson that promises made, but not kept. Successfully implementing the incentive School programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership, competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-quality centers of learning they were pledged to be. [At 36
emphasis added] 9) The Incentive School portion of the court-approved settlement can not be deemed a failure
its implementation in a meaningful manner has never been attempted. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court enter orders providing relief regarding the Incentive Schools portion of the court-approved settlement consistent with the following principles: a) there shall be a director of the Incentive Schools program, independent of the LRSD, who has final authority for (i) the adoption of any subsidiary policies necessary to implement the remedy, and (ii) the oversight, including the direction, of all district employees and agents engaged in the implementation of the incentive school remedies
b) the director shall be selected by ODM in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors
c) the director shall be paid by the LRSD at a rate 8.Wb
- .! suggested by ODM, subject to the approval of the court
d) the LRSD shall provide the director an office and necessary support as designated by the director
e) all officials, employees, and agents of the LRSD shall cooperate with the director in the fulfillment of his/her responsibilities
f) the director shall have the right to communicate with and call any problem to the attention of ODM, the Joshua Intervenors, and/or the court (with notice to the parties)
while the director shall be encouraged to attempt to resolve any problem(s) with officials or employees of the LRSD before such communication, the taking of this step shall be in his/her discretion
g) the director shall make periodic reports regarding implementation of the Incentive Schools features of the settlement, and any barriers to strong implementation
h) the court acting sua sponte, at the request of the director, or on the motion of a party, not including NLRSD or PCSSD, may address any problems raised, and may amend or supplement its special orders regarding the Incentive Schools, including by terminating the position of director when there are grounds to find that the position is no longer needed
provided that the court shall provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard prior to any such amendment or supplementation of its orders
and 9i) the entry of such other and further relief as the needs of justice may require. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 72206 By:_ Jd I. W. Walker - #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this 31st day of May, 1996. 10 ' -RECBVESS UUN 5 1996 uspLED Office of Desegregation Monitoring ^4? J JLiQQ/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAMSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS'S W WESTERN DIVISION ''''^COR.VACK, CLERK 8w. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS^s- V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, DEFENDANTS MRS, LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR RELIEF REGARDING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for relief concerning the Incentive Schools, The LRSD defendants have had a full opportunity to implement the court-approved provisions concerning the Incentive Schools in a reasonable competent and adequate manner
they have failed miserably. patient. The Court and the Joshua Intervenors have been The time has come when other approaches must be tried. Joshua's motion, including its record references established, inter alia, the following: i) are The incentive school provisions of the settlement a critically important element of the court-ordered agreement. ii) The LRSD defendants have for a lengthy period implemented the incentive school features of the settlement in a grossly inadequate manner, despite repeated notice of the shortcomings in their performances, many recommendations for curative actions. and iii) The LRSD defendants are in default with regard to their obligations to implement the incentive school remedies in a proper manner
and there is no reasonable prospect of their curing that default absent extra-ordinary intervention by the court. The authorities set forth in this memorandum establish that the court has the responsibility to approve steps reasonable likely to sure LRSD defendants' default
and that the Joshua Intervenors seek, in their motion, appropriate relief. The time to implement these important remedies in a meaningful manner has arrived. The relief sought is supported by the following precedents. a) See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (Sth Cir. 1990) ("It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to- - and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schoolsand it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties o not live up to their commitments.")
id., at 1394 ("The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate. in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.") b) See Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 402 U.S. 1, 15, 16 (1971) (: "if school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under these holdings, judicial authority may be invoked. Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a districtcourt's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies ....[]....In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district court had broad power to fashion a remedy that will assure system...."). a unitary school c) See Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v E.E.O.C.. 478 U.S. 421 (1986) (after finding that the union and the joint apprenticeship committee had engaged in a widespread pattern of racial discrimination in employment which a number of prior court decrees had failed to abate, the district court entered remedial orders, including appointment of an "administrator"
see 401 F. Supp.. 467, 489-92 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)
the Supreme Court upheld this remedy "in light of the difficult inherent in monitoring compliance with the court's orders, especially petitioners' established record of resistance to prior state and federal orders..."
it characterized the administrator as having "broad powers to oversee petitioners' membership practices, substantially interfere with petitioners' membership operations...," which "may II as a II necessary [step] to put an end to petitioners' discriminatory ways". see 478 U.S. at 481-82
an eai^lier Court of Appeals opinion noted that the administrator "will serve as the superior of the [Joint Apprenticeship Committee] representatives" on the committee concerning apprenticeship
see 532 F.2d at 830). d) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Local 542. 619 F. Supp. 1273, 1277-80 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (where union has failed after fivepurpose of [the] Order'
the membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States
specific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and educational programs, drafting a fair housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Information and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster an interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for lowincome housing development. f) Turner v Goolsby. 225 F. Supp 724 (S.D. Ga. 1966) (3- judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring districts, including by providing of bus transportation and then closed the one formerly white school as unneeded
this left the 87 black pupils who has chosen to attend the school without a desegregated option
the court placed the system in receivership, designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver "operate the schools...," and charged him with the obligation "to submit a plan..., whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded" (at 730)
thereafter, the receiver arranged for the black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties
and investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction
the receiver was discharged when the initial systemyears to operate hiring hall in a racially nondiscriminatory manner, and is in contempt of orders re tl work levels for minorities" court appoints "Hiring Hall Monitor," pursuant to Rule 53, Fed. R. Civ. Procedure, fl directly responsible to the court, who will be given the full authority to operate and oversee all features of the hiring hall"
the monitor may II appoint hiring hall leaders to run the daytoday operations in the hiring halls...," in which the monitor will not be located
where union is in contempt of orders that it "present to the court for approval" valid, job-related criteria for admission to the union for each method of entry through which mAmh^T-ghip can be attained...," court appoints an expert to do this work, with his fee to be paid by the union). e) United States v City of Parma, Ohio. 504 F. Supp. 913, 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed, 661 F.2d. 562,577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in part the establishment of a "Fair Housing Committee:" "within [the] city government"
this FHC was to II to operate as the primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing remedial plan...[and} to ensure that the provisions of [the} order [were] fully complied with...", "[membership on the FHC] shall consist of Parma citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the aagreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966-67). g) Morgan v McDonough. 540 F. 2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of extreme breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff, and overall pattern of resistance by school board
initial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which the school was located
thereafter, the district's superintendent was designated the receiver
' the receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of It all faculty and educational personnel II to select a staff II fit for the purposes of desegregation"
the receiver reported directly to the district court). h) Perez v Boston Housing Authority. 400 N.E. 2d. 1231 (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing
court placed the Boston housing Authority in receivership
the orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she II shall have the authority to administer, manage, and operate the BHA
he/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that any be necessary or appropriate
upon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded" [at 1245].). i) The Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit has twice cited with approval the opinion in Morgan v McDonough. supra inwhich the creation of a receivership to operate a high school was approved. See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District. 839 F.2d 1296, 1319 (Sth Cir. 1988) cited in support of authority of district court to create a citizen monitoring committee)
Omaha Indemnity Co. V Wining. 949 F.2d 235, 239 (Sth Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). CONCLUSION As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors. Moreover, any suggestion by the Little Rock School District that these principles do not apply because of the settlement must be rejected. As our citations to the opinion approving the settlement demonstrate, the Court of Appeals stated expressly that this court retained authority to insure compliance with the settlement. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 By 72206 Walker #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1I adoo Hheerreebbyy cceerrttiiffyy tthhaatt a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record 1996. on this 31st day of May, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL : RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL t UUN.2 4 1996 FSLSD u s DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JUN 2 0 1996 JAMES W. McGQi By
rmack, clerk V OEP cYerk PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICESQffice of Desegregation Monitoring A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), the time within which the LRSD must respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for relief concerning the incen-tive schools is hereby extended to and including August 9, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of June 1996. UNI TED STA/TES DI STRI'CT^JUDGE ON rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY 2 6 9' G.- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (ia22-iee4J WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL e. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 July 19, 1996 RECEIVED SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID O. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BOND DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Jill 1 9 1996 Of COUNSCl WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. Office of Desegregation Monitoring WRITER'* DIRECT NO. (501) 370-3323 A Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's (1) Motion to Shorten Time to Respond to Discovery and (2) Motion for Extension of Time with regard to the abovecaptioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy of each to us. By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of record. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Sam Jones (w/encls.) Steve Jones (w/encls.) Richard Roachell )(w/encls.) Ann Brown (w/encls.) Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Motion for Extension of Time states: 1. On July 2, 1996, LRSD was served with a Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). This motion overlaps substantially with the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools. 2. This Court has granted LRSD an extension of time until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools. Because of the related nature of the two motions, LRSD request that it also be granted until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that it be granted an extension of time until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the JoshuaIntervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD Christopher ^f&ll^r Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following peo States mail on this i e ay depositing copy of same in the United ay of July, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr, Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 2Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 , istopher Heller, 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-'^6 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) LRSD for its Response states: 1. LRSD admits that it agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students represented by Joshua as part of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. LRSD further admits that the LRSD Desegregation Plan was intended to promote desegregation, to strengthen the educational opportunities of all students, and to complete the transition to a system of public education free from racial discrimination. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (1) of Joshua's motion to the extent they are inconsistent with the above. 2. LRSD admits that quoted language set forth in paragraph (2) of Joshua's motion is from the opinions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case found at 921 F.2d 1371 and 949 F.2d 253. 3. With regard to paragraph (3) of Joshua's motion, LRSD admits that the Eighth Circuit required creation of an Office ofDesegregation Monitoring ("ODM") and that ODM was created to monitor LRSD's compliance with the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. LRSD denies that this Court may rely on the findings of ODM to take remedial action. 4. LRSD admits that ODM has criticized LRSD's implementation of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and that ODM has included recommendations in its reports. LRSD denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph (4) of Joshua's motion. 5. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (5) of Joshua's motion. 6. LRSD admits this Court adopted the recommendations of ODM set forth in its June 5, 1992, Monitoring Report. LRSD denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph (6) of Joshua's motion. 7. LRSD denies that it should be ordered to implement any ODM recommendation and/or that LRSD bears the burden of making a particularized showing of impropriety as to specific a recommendation. LRSD further denies that it should be required to implement any of the recommendations referenced in subparagraphs (a) through (1) of paragraph (7) of Joshua's motion. 8. LRSD hereby incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 9. LRSD affirmatively asserts that this Court has no 2jurisdiction to grant Joshua's Motion because the term of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan has expired. 10. LRSD affirmatively asserts that Joshua's Motion is untimely resulting in substantial prejudic^e to LRSD, and therefore, barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel and by the applicable statute of limitations. 11. LRSD requests a hearing on Joshua's motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's motion be denied
that LRSD be granted it costs and attorneys' fees expended herein
and that it be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD An Christopher Helper fj J Nn. Rinfi'i Bar No. 81083 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop]^ by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this _7^^ay of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 :f^^stopher Heller (j C. 4FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1 922-1 984) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W.BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 9, 1996 Received SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Of COUNtCl WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. 4UG 9 1996 RlTEH'S OlAC T NO. (5011 370-3323 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Office of Ossogregafion MonHowg Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the following pleadings which we would appreciate you filing of record and returning a file-marked copy of each pleading to us: (1) (2) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)
LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools
and (3) Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). By copy of this letter we are serving same on all counsel of record.Hon. James W. McCormack August 9, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley John Fendley, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Richard Roachell and Mr. Travis Creed (w/encls.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encls.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Monuonny INTERVENORS Office 01 00369'69^^" LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS-MOTION* FOR RELIEF CONCERNING INCENTIVE SCHOOLS LRSD for its Response states: 1. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The Little Rock School District will have seven (7) schools providing the incentive school program. Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school, but would continue to provide the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. a LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 149. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (1) of Joshua's motion to the extent they are inconsistent with the express language of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. 2. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (2) of Joshua's motion. 3. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (3) of Joshua's motion. 4. LRSD denies that it has implemented any aspect of the LRSD Desegregation Plan in a grossly inadequate manner. LRSD will address each subparagraph of paragraph (4) of Joshua's motion below. 5. Upkeep of Facilities. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The District will provide clean and safe facilities and make all schools, condition. repairs fundamental magnet schools. To this end. and to maintain area schools roofing repairs, incentive in good painting. plastering, recarpeting, and other needed repairs will be made. repair. Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 129. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 6. Recruit Deseqreqated Student Bodies. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. a LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 149. LRSD denies that this provision obligated LRSD to achieve specific racial balance at the incentive schools. LRSD admits that it was obligated to recruit both black and white students to attend incentive schools and affirmatively asserts that it has substantially complied with this obligation. Staff Desegregation. As ODM has recognized, "The LRSD plan . . . makes only a philosophical commitment to 'equity' in 7. a 2staffing and reviewing staffing patterns. ODM Report dated H September 15, 1995, P. 9. Similarly, in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan ("Interdistrict Plan"), LRSD committed itself to the "principle" that "[sjtaffing and staff recruitment will reflect student needs for contact with minority teachers and a diversity in the racial makeup of support staffs consistent with applicable law. II Interdistrict Plan, p. 23. See also Interdistrict Plan, p. 25 ("Goal II: To develop mutually supportive and equitable personnel and placement procedures. . . . The principals will be accountable to ensure equitable distribution of teachers by grade level and subject area.")(emphasis supplied). In light of its commitment to this principle. LRSD agreed "[t]o monitor distribution of staff across grade levels and support areas. tl Interdistrict Plan, p. 25. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 8. Selecting and Retaining a High Quality Faculty. As a part of opening the incentive schools. LRSD was obligated to "establish a committee to assess staffing needs for Incentive Schools, to set criteria for staffing, to recruit quality staff members, and determine procedures for staffing." LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 190. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. Integration of Themes into School Programs. The LRSD Plan provides, "School Themes will be developed at the local school level by parents and staff and are recommended to be integrated 9. into the total curriculum." LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 153. LRSD 3has substantially complied with this obligation. See ODM Report dated July 12, 1996, P- 25 ("[W]e were gratified to see the coordination and vigor with which all five school worked to implement their themes."). 10. Multicultural Education. The LRSD Desegregation Plan requires that a "multicultural approach" be integrated into its curriculum and the total school environment. See LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 63-80. In February of this year, LRSD, Joshua and ODM agreed that LRSD had complied with the provisions of its desegregation plan relating to multicultural education and that LRSD should be released from Court supervision and monitoring related to those provisions. See Stipulation for Order filed February 9, 1996, p. 1-2 (Docket No. 2626) and Order dated March 27, 1996 (Docket No. 2648). Joshua alleges no facts which would support setting aside the Court's March 27, 1996, Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 11. Foreign Language Program. LRSD admits that it has not fully implemented the provisions of its desegregation plan related to foreign language program. LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 153 and 156. A business case was submitted as a part of the LRSD FY 1995- 96 budget setting forth an evaluation of the foreign language program and concluding that the program should be discontinued. During the hearings on the FY 1995-96 budget. testimony was presented to support that business case. It was made known at the hearing that LRSD did not intend to fund the foreign language program in the future. Joshua has failed to raise a timely 4objection to LRSD discontinuation of the program, and accordingly, their motion should be denied based on the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel. 12. Science Education. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: General Areas for Implementation - (subject to an annual assessment of the effectiveness thereof) * 10. Science Laboratories equipped with adequate equipment and materials and supplies, either mobile or permanent, will be available for students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 153. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 13. Field Trips. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: Field Trips Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaden cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) supplemented with a state or national trip. may be LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 158. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 173. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 14. Extended Day Program. The LRSD Desegregation Plan requires extended day activities designed "to provide enhanced n educational opportunities for all students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 181. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 173-74. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 15. Saturday Program. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: A. Additional Items It is recommended that each incentive school have: * * Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. 5These programs will include but shall not be limited to: - field trips - enrichment activities - tutoring - parent/child "make & take" sessions - book fairs - physical education activities LRSD Desegregation Plan, P- 179 (emphasis supplied). This "recommendation" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD has implemented a Saturday program consistent with this recommendation. 16. Extended Year Program. LRSD denies that it has failed to substantially comply with its obligations related to the extended year program. See LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 172-73 and 180. Incentive school students are offered summer program for a remediation and enrichment free of charge. The program has been advertised and promoted at the incentive schools to encourage participation, and students who decided to participate have been instructed at their own academic levels rather than by means of a specifically identified grade designation. 17. Individual Student Profiles. A goal of the LRSD Desegregation Plan is "[t]o more closely and thoroughly monitor Incentive Schools in order to develop a clearer picture of student achievement . . LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 186. Toward this H goal, LRSD is obligated to develop Student Education Plans ("SEPs") for incentive school students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 186. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 18. Discipline Policies. With regard to discipline at the incentive schools, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: 6Attendance and Behavior Guidelines Attendance and behavior guidelines will provide unique opportunities to assist students and keep them in school. Time out areas staffed with trained personnel will help students with problem solving. Students will participate in the process of developing school-based management rules. Students and parents will sign a contractual agreement to be at school and on time each day. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 175. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 182. LRSD has substantially complied with these provisions. The Interdistrict Plan contains similar requirements related to the goal of "establish[ing] student discipline and attendance policies which address student needs as well as school climate concerns. II Interdistrict Plan, p. 27. LRSD has also substantially complied with these requirements. 19. Parent Centers. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: We are only beginning to understand which types, formats, frequencies and locations of parent involvement lead to specific student. parent. and teacher attitudes and behaviors. achievements, Principals can help teachers to successfully involve parents by coordinating, managing, supporting, funding, recognizing, and rewarding parent involvement, and by planning programs to strengthen that involvement. We expect the process of developing parental involvement activities to be on-going. suggested activities are listed below: Some * * 5. Establish a Parent Center in each school. * * LRSD Desegregation Plan, P. 206 (emphasis supplied). This II suggestion" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD has established a parent center at each school as suggested by the plan. 720. Signing Homework. As means to increase parent involvement, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides that II [p]arents will sign homework. II LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 183. LRSD has a substantially complied with this obligation. 21. Use of Social Workers. There are no II provisions on the use of social workers II in the LRSD Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Plan. To be sure, LRSD has used social workers to meet certain obligations under the plans. If Joshua seeks to challenge LRSD's compliance with these obligations, it should raise them specifically. It is unclear from the citations in Joshua's Motion what obligations, if any, are at issue. 22 . Home Visits. As with parent centers, the LRSD Desegregation Plan merely suggests home visits as a means to develop parent involvement. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 206. This "suggestion" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD conducts home visits as circumstances permit. 23 . LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (5) of Joshua's Motion. 24. LRSD admits that the language quoted by Joshua in paragraph (6) of its Motion is from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in this case found at 921 F.2d 1371. 25. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (7) of Joshua's Motion. 26. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (8) of Joshua's Motion. 27 . LRSD admits that the incentive school portion of the LRSD 8Desegregation Plan cannot be deemed a failure. LRSD denies that it has not implemented the incentive school portion of the plan in a meaningful manner. 28. LRSD hereby incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 29. LRSD affirmatively asserts that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant Joshua's Motion because the term of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan has expired. 30. LRSD affirmatively asserts that Joshua's Motion IS untimely resulting in substantial prejudice to LRSD, and therefore, barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel and by the applicable statute of limitations. 31. LRSD requests a hearing on Joshua's motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's motion be denied
that LRSD be granted it costs and attorneys' fees expended herein
and 9that it be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD C. Christopher Heller/ Bar No. 81083 10CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 9^ day of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A, 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Deseflfegalion Monitoring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR RELIEF CONCERNING INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) I. Jurisdiction. The LRSD Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (the "Plans") have expired by their own terms. See LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Pursuant to the 1989 settlement agreement ("Settlement Agreement"), this Court's jurisdiction was limited to "address[ing] issues regarding implementation of the Plans. If Since the term of the Plans has expired, this Court no longer has jurisdiction based on the Plans. See E.E.O.C. v. Local 40, 76 F.3d 76, 80 (2nd Cir. 1996) ("A court does not have inherent power to enforce an order that has expired."). Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to order the relief sought by Joshua. II. Burden on Joshua to Establish Noncompliance. Even assuming Joshua's motions were timely filed, Joshua bears the burden of establishing LRSD's noncompliance with the Plansregardless of how the motions are characterized. Joshua's motions could be construed one of three ways. First, the motions sound in the nature of motions for contempt. A party seeking a finding of contempt "has the burden of proving a violation of the consent decree by clear and convincing evidence." Hazen v. Reagan, 16 F. 3d 921, 925 (Sth Cir. 1994). In addition, to support a finding of contempt, Joshua must establish that LRSD knowingly violated the Plans, see Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273, 1275 (Sth Cir. 1994), and that LRSD is not acting with reasonable diligence to bring itself into compliance with the Plans. See Dunn v. New York Dept. of Labor, 47 F.3d 4S5, 490 (2nd Cir. 1995). The allegations set forth in Joshua's motions fail to establish the necessary elements for contempt. Second, the motions could be considered motions to modify the Plans. The Supreme Court has outlined the following process for modification of consent decrees: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. moving party meets this standard, the court If the should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Rufo V. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992) . In addition. "[m]edification of a consent decree requires a complete hearing and findings of fact. tl Akers V. Ohio Dep't of Liguor Control. 902 F.2d 477, 479 (6 th Cir. 1990). Joshua's motions fail to allege facts sufficient to justify modification of the Plans. Finally, because "consent decrees and orders have many of the 2attributes of ordinary contracts . . II Mahers, 32 F.3d at 1275- 76, Joshua's allegations of noncompliance could be construed as a claim for breach of contract. It is well established that a party alleging breach of contract bears the burden of proof. See Rabalaias v. Barnett, 284 Ark. 527, 683 S.W.2d 919 (1985)
and Williams V. Fletcher. 267 Ark. 961, 644 S.W.2d 946 (Ark. App. 1980). Therefore, regardless of how Joshua's motions are construed, Joshua bears the burden of establishing LRSD's alleged noncompliance. To escape this burden, Joshua argues that ODM's monitoring reports establish "a prima facie case" of noncompliance. This argument is without merit. ODM's findings and recommendations are advisory in nature and not binding on LRSD or this Court. While Joshua is free to make ODM's reports a part of the record, due process requires that LRSD be given notice of the specific obligations that Joshua alleges LRSD has failed to comply. See Ferrell v. Pierce. 785 F.2d 1372, 1383 (7th Cir. 1986)(trial court abused its discretion in basing contempt finding on issues not raised in petition for contempt). Due process further requires that a full adversarial hearing be conducted before this Court makes findings of fact. See Akers, 902 F.2d at 479. Until LRSD has the opportunity to contest ODM's findings, this Court cannot enter further remedial order's based on those findings. Cf. Juan F. V. Weicker, 37 F.3d 874, 880 (2nd Cir. 1994)(court may accept monitor's findings of fact made after It lengthy evidentiary hearing"). 3Joshua's argument should also be rejected because the assumption underlying its argument are false. Joshua's argument assumes that every ODM recommendation is based on a finding of noncompliance. This assumption is absolutely wrong. Many of ODM's recommendations are unrelated to any of LRSD's obligations under the Plans. For example, LRSD has recently implemented the phonics based "Great Expectations" instructional approach at two incentive schools. Although there is no requirement in the Plans related to Great Expectations, ODM in its most recent report recommended that LRSD tl [bjetter define the role of phonics instruction in the incentive schools and convene a meeting of those administrators in charge of the incentive schools and the reading supervisor and his staff to communicate that role to all teachers so that phonics instruction will conform to the board-adopted LRSD curriculum. II ODM Monitoring Report dated July 12, 1996, p. 27-28. Similarly, ODM has recommended that LRSD II [t]earn with community organizations (such as churches and civic clubs) and other programs (such as HIPPY and New Futures) to explore ways to cooperate in offering parent training. It ODM Monitoring Report dated July 12, 1996, p. 79. The merits of this recommendation aside, it has no relationship to any of LRSD's obligations' under 'plan obligations must be distinguished from plan goals. LRSD agreed to undertake certain limited obligations designed to achieve certain goals. every means to achieve a goal. LRSD did not agree to undertake any and Therefore, while ODM's recommendation may be a means to achieve a plan goal (strengthening parental involvement), it has no relationship to 4the Plans. To order LRSD to implement this recommendation (and many others like it) would impermissibly expand LRSD's obligations under the Plans. See Crumpton v. Bridgeport Educ. Ass'n, 993 F.2d 1023, 1028 (2nd Cir. 1993)("[A] court construing [a consent decree] is not entitled to expand or contract the agreement of the parties as set forth in the consent decree."). Thus, one cannot assume ODM's recommendations are based on a finding of noncompliance. As in any other case, Joshua bears the burden of proving in an adversarial hearing the allegations set forth in their motions. III. Least Intrusive Means to Ensure Compliance. Even assuming Joshua can establish LRSD's noncompliance, Joshua's motions should be denied. While this Court may order reasonable measures to ensure compliance with the Plans, considerations of comity and federalism require this Court to use the least intrusive means to bring about compliance. See U.S. V. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 167 (6th Cir. 1991) ("[I]t was incumbent upon the district court in the action sub judice to impose the least intrusive remedies available in resolving the issues reviewed on appeal.")
Morgan v. McDonough, 540 F.2d 527, 533 (1st Cir. 1976) ("To be sure, direct judicial intervention in the operation of a school system is not to be welcomed. and it should not be continued longer than necessary. But if in extraordinary circumstances it is the only reasonable alternative to noncompliance with the court's plan of desegregation, it may, with LRSD obligations under the Plans to achieve that goal. 5appropriate restraint, be ordered.")(emphasis supplied). See also Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 439 (1984)("[T]he district court breached fundamental principles of federalism and exceeded its authority by enjoining Hendricks, Henderson and Ashley from performing certain responsibilities of employment which had been delegated to them by the state."). Moreover, upon a finding of noncompliance, LRSD should be given the opportunity to "show that compliance with the full terms of the plan should not be required. If U.S. V. Michigan. 18 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 1994). Joshua's motions do not even allege facts sufficient for this Court to grant Joshua the relief it requests. As discussed above. the fact that ODM has made a recommendation provides no basis for ordering LRSD to implement the recommendation. Moreover, Joshua's allegations fall far short of establishing that receivership is the least intrusive means of ensuring LRSD's compliance with the Plans. See Glover V. Johnson, 855 F. 2d 277, 286 (6th Cir. 1988)(Appointment of administrator vacated where there was no evidence that II the defendants willfully disobeyed the court's order, violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and forfeited to the federal judiciary the defendants' constitutional authority to continue to administer all aspects of the Michigan correctional system."). The time has come for this Court's involvement with the operations of LRSD to end, not expand. See LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. In addressing Joshua's motions, this Court's inquiry is limited: 6[F]ederal-court decrees must directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself. Because of this inherent limitation upon federal judiciary authority, federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate the Constitution or does not flow from such a violation .... Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II), 433 U.S. 267, 282 (1977). The Supreme Court in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991), stated that: From the very first federal supervision of local school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination. Brown considered the arising from the transition to a "complexities education freed from racial discrimination system of public tl in holding that the implementation of desegregation was to proceed with all deliberate speed. Ct. , at 755-57 (emphasis added) . 349 U.S., at 299-301, 75 S. Green also spoke of the "transition to a unitary nonracial system of public education. It 391 (emphasis added). U.S. , at 436, 88 S. Ct. , at 1693 Id., 498 U.S. at 247-48. After declaring that judicial supervision of local school systems was not intended to operate in perpetuity. the Court in Dowell recognized that: Local control over education of children allows citizens to participate in decisionmaking, and allows innovation so that school programs can fit local needs. omitted] . . [citations Dissolving a desegregation decree after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time properly recognizes that II necessary concern for important values of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal court's regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the time required to discrimination. remedy the effects of past See Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken III, 433 U.S., at 280-82, 97 S.Ct., at 2757-58." Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education. 611 F.2d at 1245, (Kennedy, J., concurring). n. 5 Dowell. 498 U.S. at 248. In permitting district courts to return control to school districts in incremental stages, the Supreme Court in Freeman v. 7Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992), stated: Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the case, can be an important and significant step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and control of the schools to local authorities. In Dowell, we emphasized that federal judicial supervision of local school systems was intended to be a "temporary measure. II S.Ct. , at 636. -498 U.S. ___, 111 Although this temporary measure has lasted decades, the ultimate objective has not changed to return school districts authorities. to the control of local Id., 503 U.S. at 489 (emphasis supplied). The court further noted, "A court's discretion to order incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. II Id., 503 U.S. at 491. Therefore, this Court's consideration of Joshua's motions should by guided by its ultimate objective" to return Little Rock's public schools to the control of local authorities. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. Joshua admits that the Plans were intended II to complete 'the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination. III Joshua Motion Regarding ODM Recommendations, 5 1, quoting Brown v. Board of Education. 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955). With the term of the Plans concluded, that transition is now complete. See LRSD Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Accordingly, Joshua's motions should 8be denied, and this Court's jurisdiction over this case should be terminated. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD By: Christopher Bar No. 81083 H^l^ / 33 V 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Cnr.istopher Heller j' H 10FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1822-1 9841 WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES w. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P. A . FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A, OSCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. OONALO H.'-BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH a. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. OIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAUS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL little ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-20 1 1 FAX NO. 501 -376-2 1 47 August 9/ 1996 SCOTT J. UAMCA8TCR. P.A. M. CAYLC CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LICHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. CUY ALTON WAOE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. OaVIO 0. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER OAVIO M. GRAF CARLA 0*. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR . ALLISON CRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Of COUNCEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. due 9 ?996 HI TEA'S OIAECT tO. (5011 370-3323 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 OWcs cf MonHcriiig Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the following pleadings which we would appreciate you filing of record and returning a file-marked copy of each pleading to us: (1) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)
(2) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools
and (3) Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). ^sscgregsiion By copy of this letter we are serving same on all counsel of record.Hon. James W. McCormack August 9, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, John y, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Richard Roachell and Mr. Travis Creed (w/encls.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encls.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-TS6 RECEIWD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitcnng INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) LRSD for its Response states: 1. LRSD admits that it agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students represented by Joshua as part of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. LRSD further admits that the LRSD De
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.