07x25/1996 0S:52 FROM. JOHN . U . WALKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WACKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUOTN PORTER. JR. July 22, 1996 Me. Hafeeza Majeed 2604 Brown Little Rock, AR 72204 Mr. Mark Cole 1306 Louisiana Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Majeed and Mr. Cole: Thank you for your inquiry about the moratorium on new litigation regarding desegregation issues which may be brought on behalf of the class which I represent against the Little Rock School District. Your concerns are noted with deference and respect. Let me hasten to try to address your concerns in a manner which you may feel free to publicize as you see fit. In order to put the matter into perspective, a bit of background is appropriate and necessary. When the Little Rock School District Board President appointed me to the Contingency Committee to plan for a superintendent replacement recommendation, I accepted that responsibility for three reasons: a) the Board president is able, conscientious, dedicated and committed to the creation of a high quality, nondiscriminatory, equal opportunity school system for all children
b) the other appointees are individuals whom I believe to be capable of operating in good faith on this important issue/ and 107/25/1996 08:53 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.P. TO 3710100 P. 03 c) the district's present needs require an administrator who has experience, demonstrated success in bridging racial chasms, and unreserved commitment to the Little Rock School District and to the ideas contained in the settlement plan. I also weighed the possibility of my being in a conflict situation in the process. I resolved that concern in favor of participation because the Court is not obliged to accept our choices for school administrators
that clearly is a school board function. I became merely an advisor on an ad hoc basis. I now proceed to address the question of our choices and our processes. The first task of the committee was to deal with interim management between the date announced for the employment of Dr. williams by another district and the time that an interim superintendent could be employed here while the District considered its long term options. For your information, the choice of an interim management team was difficult. It is fair to say that each of us made suggestions of team members and that no one person's viewpoint dominated in the process. The team selected reflects a consensus judgment with which I am pleased. As you may suspect, I have had problems with some of the people on the management team, but by and large I believe that the team membership has competent, willing individuals who can work together. With respect to Dr. Roberts, my recollection is that Dr. Roosevelt Brown was familiar with his work and with that of Dr. 207/25/1996 08:54 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.O, TO 3710100 P . 04 Morris Holmes of New Orleans. Dr. Roberts and Dr. Holmes were on staff in Little Rock and recently worked together in Pt. Worth as well. Dr. Holmes, a Superintendent of the New Orleans highly respected African American, is now School District, and it was felt that he would not very likely be interested in an interim position in Little Rock, charge to be one to select permanent superintendent. Moreover, we did not understand or to recommend selection of Although Dr. Brown Roberts, as did several other committee other persons were suggested as well, some of whom were white, but a our recommended Dr. members, the names of some of whom were black and our view was unanimous that Dr. Roberts well met the qualifications that the committee established for interim superintendent. After we interviewed Dr. Roberts, I came to the conclusion that he is of strong and genuine interracial goodwill
is committed to the education of all children, especially underpriviledged children
is committed to the actions set forth in the settlement principles and leadership potential for bringing together agreement
and has unique divisive forces in the Little Rock School District. volunteered to cooperate with him spirit of the settlement plan and Upon arriving at that opinion, 1 he is here on an interim basis. and to work with him in the to avoid litigation as long as I indicated that I would initiate any new litigation for that period (between not one to two years ^ijiq his tenure), as long as the Board of Education supports his recommendations and emphases regarding our children. 307/25x1996 08:55 FROM JOHN W.UfiLKER P,B. TO 3710100 P . 05 The "no litigation" promise relates solely to Dr. Roberts and not to the school board. If the board takes any action which is contrary to the desegregation plan and to Dr. Robert's judgments, this "moratorium" does not apply. Moreover, the "no litigation" pledge is consistent with the pledge contained in the original settlement agreement and with the very way I related to Dr. Henry Williams. The difference is that this pledge was publicized. while it was not publicized for Dr. Williams. Please be reminded that I took no action regarding the stewardship of Dr. Williams for a lengthy period. The moratorixjm does not apply to the three matters which are presently pending, at my initiative, before Judge Wright, namely
a) the motion we filed to implement the desegregation plan provisions regarding the Incentive Schools and to designate someone as an overseer for those schools
b) a motion to enforce the findings, recommendations and suggestions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, which have been made over a period of five years
and c) the attorney fee motion which is scheduled to be heard on August 19, 1996. We are in the process of addressing the problem of disparate discipline and have advised the committee that this matter is not included in our promise except to the extent that before we file a motion regarding it we will afford Dr. Roberts an opportunity to address it. But the record on which we will proceed pertains to the previous administration rather than to that of Dr, 4 I I07/25/1996 08:56 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 06 ( 1 1 Roberts. Perhaps it would be more simple to say that I do not envisage initiating new litigation against the school district for acts undertaken by Dr. Roberts or his administration for a period of at least one and up to two years while he is here. me also say Let that the settlement has other enforcement provisions and provides the opportunity for plan revision, if necessary. in I expect to agree with some of the recommendations made by the Desegregation Revision Study Committee headed by Ms. Cora McHenry and Mr. Bill Bowen, which was appointed by the Board President several months ago, and also expect to join the school board in a motion to the Court for their adoption. The new objective that I have in mind at this time is to ensure that the goals of the settlement agreement are implemented within a framework of good will and racial cooperation which will extend beyond any final court judgment in this case. It should be made clear to people in our community that if anyone feels that his/her rights have been denied by either Dr. Roberts or the Little Rock School District, they will still have at least two options, i.e., a) enforcement through the settlement decree. or b) initiating a private legal action either in state or federal court. I am stating simply that I will not resort to new litigation regarding desegregation issues until we afford Dr. Roberts and his staff, which is expected to be biracial, an opportunity to comply with the settlement agreement. I suspect that-some are cautious about my public statement because of the expressions of support from conservative and white 5 1... 0J/25/1996 08:57 FROM JOHN U,WALKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 07 affluent sections of the community- because of their That is a normal reaction historic pursuit of favor for their children. Be assured that my commitment is total to our people. But also be assured that that segment of the community must come to understand that their children do not suffer because the educational needs of our children are given more consideration. It is now simply our in anticipation of a collective task to work together with them time when the Court ends its careful < ) i 1 scrutiny, i.e. jurisdiction. I implore you and others in the community, therefore, to reappraise our situation, meet Dr. Roberts, listen to his ideas and then hold him to the plan and to the other promises he makes as he enters this most difficult time and district. Thank you for your usual cooperation. Vj truly yours, ohn W. Walker JWW
js 1 i cc: t. MS. Lorene Joshua Ms. Daisy Bates Ms. Sarah Facen MS. Linda pondexter Dr. Michael Daughtery Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Dale Charles Rev. Robert Willingham Mr. Marcellus Person Rev. A.J. Allen Bishop Jessie Burris Rev. C.E. McAdoo Ms. Mr. Ms. Ms. Daisy Bates Delaney Fleming Teresa Young Alice Rowe r 6 1 I87x25/1996 08:58 from JOHN U.UfiLKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P . 08 1 Dx Roosevelt- Brown Ms. Marion Lacey Dr. Rufus Thrower Ms. Katherine Parham I I I t! ,1 I 7 b i11/22/1906 12:41 FROM JOHN W.WnLKER P.-fl- TO 3710100 , P . 02 This document addresses the perspective from which Joshua's representatives approached the meeting of November 14, 1996
the content of that meeting
and areas for possible agreements about the future of the litigation. earspegtXvLq The Joshua Intervenors' goal has been and is the elimination of racial discimination and segregation and their effects in the LRSD, root and branch. Fulfillment of this goal requires multiple steps. There must be among other things actions to promote and maintain desegregation and to address the achievement gap. system's desirable academic classes and programs, as well as extracurricular activities. Discipline and other harsh consequences must not be visited disproportionately on black students. African American persons must be involved in all departments in the LRSD, including in leadership positions. Individuals selected for leadership positions should be committed to the achievement of a genuinely nondiscriminatory system, competent to fill the positions for which they are selected, and selected in a fair manner. Tiic Cvjiiuu luLci vcjwia vleweu Lii apptoveu ayteenieiius In this case as ones which could, if properly implemented, lead to a genuinely nondiscriminatory system. Intervenors have been disappointed, as have the court and its monitoring arm, ODM, As a consequence, those representing the intervenors have been required to expend considerable time in mnoitoring compliance with the agreements and working for improved compliance. Lead counsel participated in the process which led to the selection of Dr. Don Roberts. Based upon his familiarity with Dr. Roberts, he viewed the interim superintendent as a person whose leadership, even on a temporary basis, could yield strengthened implementation of the plan, including its features addressing the achievement gap. Lead counsel, who had made a committment to reduce court activity, was, therefore, willing to listen when, he understood, Dr. Roberts sought to discuss approaches for improving attainment of the objectives of the approved agreements. -Trie-Msg,t
ing Dr. Roberts stated that the LRSD is graduating 1,500 ill- prepared students each year. He described a process utilized in the Fort Worth School District for strengthening the relevant knowledge and skills of high school graduates. It involved careful study of a wide variety of employment opportunities in the area to identify the knowledge and skills needed by employees
strengthening student enrollment in more rigorous areas of the curriculum, including algebra and geometry, with an1 1 / 2 2/19 9 6 12:42 FROM JOHN W.UALKER P.fl. TO '10100 I P . 03 emphasis on groups traditionally participating the region, strengthening elementary education, for examole bv increasing emphasis on the application of higher order skills^ during the course of instructional activihiel involve increased emphasis on teaching students to perfora a sinale lob. Tht^v :_ r periorm a . , - - * ---J bbosd supporting these students to enhance participate during the summer i single job. They were viewed by Or. courses Roberts as likely to to yield increased ooliege-gcing by graduates, for exaspie as a participating in rigorous elements Dr. Roberts expressed the need to We understood him to strengthening education prevent "resegregation. argue, perhaps implicitly, that over a several year period, by h period, oy an White families in the "?--????-' == some white youth. ' -- approach similar to the possibly, lead to the return of Lead counsel described a litany of problems segregated components of the administration- These included! -, - appointment of , well as those opposed to assistant principals^ ^1. and people with no experience, desegregation
class members
absence of promotion of persons who have mistreatpd excessive and "mean spirited" disJiplTSr "child advocates" at each level
the police in the schools often in arbitrary ways
who act to justify their presence, ... armT-r- an determine whether as having a _____ a lack of assessment to programs are effective
inadequate steps to gap, pushing students out of school same each year
address the achievement actions which communicate that thevareunwXZ+-X^^ scnooi oy for the incentive schools. -^wp-tementatioh of the program by Lead counsel emphasized that should be part of the ---- scholarships for participants ?un5rSch oou?d =chSoi/Kh:rL, suggested setting superintendent indicated some supoort for th4= f -x. the particular formulation offerSd^bJ Walks?? ' He Mr. Walker. At the conclusion of lead understood Dr. Rogers to state, of the type identified by lead consistent with his agenda. counsel's presentation, we tersely, that addressing problems counsel was either part of or Dr. Rogers discussed ideas for the school board, appearances on television appearances on television, and communityn-22/1996 12:44 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 04 meetings with prior steps taken to generate large attendance by persons from many constituencies. He emphasized the need to initiate such steps promptly. Dr. Rogers also identified the need for advocacy to generate a pool of funds to address facility needs, as well as strengthening access to techology. Ms. Ann Brown referred to the court's interest in modifications to the agreements. She mentioned some frustration on the part of ODM staff in finding recurring problems in the LRSD in successive monitoring cycles. Ms. Brown noted the substantive talents of her staff and their abilities to contribute to improved implementation of the agreements, or other steps, by more direct involvement. Dr. Rogers expressed receptivity to this concept, for example fay stating that ODM staff could work with LRSD staff to prepare the budget, rather than simply review LRSD's version. The possibility that ODM staff could be increased to allow completion of its monitoring responsibilities outside LRSD was viewed as conceivable. (Moreover, these intervenors have expressed the view that ODM monitoring in LRSD needs to reach down to the student level to identify the types of hostile conduct responsible for the achievement gap.) ODM The participants at the meeting discussed issues framed bv 1 T o4 Z-,____ . submissions to the district court and the court of appeals This included the possibility of withdrawing the Joshua motion incentive schools and the ODM recommendations LRSD s appeal of the denial of the motion for dismissal of the case, as well as the motion to terminate the court's jurisdiction. Lead counsel and LRSD representatives discussed system's paying some attorneys' fees. and the participants discussed a 6-9 month period in which Dr. Roberts and LRSD's administrators and employees under his Ife.yaa direction would get some breathing space to move forward with Dr Roberts' ideas regarding strengthened education and, implicitly.' the issues raised by lead counsel as described above It was ^BPaggPtJtoCing the meeting that Dr. Roberts sought semT^nae IP .the-SUCrent obligations for plan implementation during the 6-9 month period However. the nature of such changes was not clear tfiL..any .Joshua representative. based upon viie uxscussiun, IILJ understood the 6-9 month period to be one where a focuswould be developing plan modifications for submission to the court. Rather, we viewed the period as one in which to learn whether Roger's approach would better attain the objectives of the agreements. This "track record" could then provide a concrete basis for Joshua representatives to decide upon the propriety of identifying plan modifications. (The second and third sentences Dr. uu,J
^iS set forth our independent thoughts about the pUtpUSC VX U.X U i --------------------- ,.X,4. 4.U______ e<7. was discussed in a way so that their would be "** bat- -thft matter understanding of this.) a oonunon11/22/1996 12:45 FROM JOHN W.W fl L K E R P.fl. TO P J15. r 1010 0 (1.) We will consider a 6-9 month period for the superintendent to focus on his educational agenda and issues identified by lead counsel, once we understand fully what LRSD proposes with regard to the existing plan obligations during this period and we have some assurance that the problems identified by lead counsel will be addressed. (2.) we will consider requesting the court to treat as inactive during any agreed upon 6-9 month period our notions regarding the incentive schools and the ODM recommendations. There should be some reciprocal action by LRSD. (3.) Lead counsel could, consistent with his schedule, participate in efforts to disseminate information about any agreements and advocate for funds for facilities and improving the use of current technologies. This and any other agreements are dependent upon progress regarding attorneys' fees, see paragraph (7.) below. I (4.) We can not agree to discontinue on site monitoring at Little Rock schools in view of our perceptions about inadequate compliance in this sphere, views buttressed by the findings of the court and ODM. Such a step given the circumstances would be inconsistent with the obligation to provide vigorous representation to the class. We can consider directing our findings and contentions based upon such monitoring to a particular person or persons other than Dr. Rogers, if we have confidence based upon the identity of the dGsignee(s) that our material will receive the attention which it is due and the designee has the ability to accomplish something. (5.) We can not, in view of the continuing problems which we have called to LRSD's attention, agree that Ms. Springer and lead counsel will cease involvement in discipline matters below the level of expulsion if LRSD means to suggest this. We can agree to present our contentions regarding such discipline to child advocates designated jointly by LRSD and Joshua Intervenors, if these persons have the ability to take corrective steps and the responsibility to provide the interim superintendent an overview of any problematic patterns which come to their attention. (6.) Wg will consider carefully any proposals for a new stephens School and "a school out west." We note however that the court has expressed the need to consider any such proposals in the light of overall facility needs. (7.) We seriously question whether we are in a position to make any agreements without progress on the matter of attorneys' fees. Lead counsel did not receive the entirety of the earlier LRSD payment, and the proceeds which he did receive were subject to taxation. Lead counsel and his associates each function as a private attorney general. Funds received form one civil rights! 1 IS 1996 12 47 FROM JOHN U.U A L K E R P.A. TO 710100 P . Ob other civil rights cases where clients are needed to support other civil rights cases are unable to pay the full costs, and success is uncertain and are unaoie w p i t-he denial of fees, should that be uneven. indeed, we will appeal the denial of fees, the court rules upon our motion for the situation after reconsideration. (8.) We will consider carefully specific proposals for ODM sta to be involved .-ore direotly in the operation of the ^SD. However, we also resources e need to know about steps to provide additional to ODM so that more micro level monitoring is possible. (9.) We will consider any particular proposed modifications to the agreements offered by LRSD. (10.) Me once we understand will work expeditiously on language for the court the full context and have the reaction of LRSD to this memorandum. need to have periodic briefings by 1 (11.) There would be a i--- ----- , that intervenors' representatives would the superintendent so understand the status of work under way. i*U HEReCHSk H. FBIDAT WikUAM H. SUrrOM, F.A. JAMES W . MOORE B*80h M. EI6EWAM, 4M., F.A JOE a EU. F-A. JOHM C. CHDk:i F.A. JAMES A MUfVRT, EUFQeWICX 5, URtSRV. F A H.T, kAK2LRC, F.A. DOAR E. OAVIV, jR.. P A. JAMFB C OlaR< 44.. P.A. IKOMAS P LS066TT, P.A. JQHM OEWEY WATdOM, F.A FawU a EEMHAM ill. F-A. iapxt w. auRxa. * a. A, WY$Xk>ES M8BET. JR,. F-A. JAMEi COWARD HARRIE. F A. J-. PK^kUF MAkOOM. F.A. JAMCf M EfWF^ON. P A MtPEOlTH F. OATUETT. P.A. 4AMED M. 9AVTON. P.A. 4. SHCFMERa RySftELL U(. F.A. OOMAkD M RACON, F.A. WlkklAM THOMAS RAXYCfl. F.A WAkTER A, PAUL80M <1. F.A RAMftT 6. DOPUW. F.A. RICHARO 0. TAFkOR. P.A 4QVEFH a. HUR9T. 4R , P A. EtllARETH HOaaEM MURRAV, F.A, OHRidTOFMCR HCUER. f -A. LAURA MENRiCy OMITH, F A. R09ERT 8 SKAFCR, F.A. Wtkk'AMM SRtFFlN (11. F> tMOUA< M Roae, P.A. MlOMACt e. MOORE, F A. OlANf a, MACtE*. F'A. waiter M. EFEk (H. F (EVIN A oaxts, R.A. WtUiAM A. WADOEkk. 4R.. F A. 'A .'It- ' 4'" FRinXY, ttDREDGE & CLARK A PARTNERSHIP O* WOIVlDUAlS ANO PROFESaiONAt ASEOClAl IBNS ATTOftNCYR AT XAVil 2000 FtftST COMMEf^CIAL SUlL&}NQ 400 wesr CAFiroL IjYTue ROCK, ARKANSAS 72a0134t3 TElC^MOME S0V37S-2O11 FAX NO. 6O1-S5-81<! November 26, 1996 1. ,1 . JteOTTJ. kAMCADTjF
F.A. M. OAYkI eORkt*. A. z i ROSUt ft, EAC. 4S\, F A ' 4. kCE ftROWH, >.X. - , 4AMe 0. iARER. 4R.. F.A HARAT A, LI4MT. r A, ftCOTT H, TUO<. F.A 40hM DkRTTCIH RAMQOLFK. * fiWT AkTOW WAas. F-A FWret C QAHONEX. F A 4. MtCHAEl FtORCNS, P.A, TOMIA F. J0N8. F.A OAVIO 0. WlteON. F.A 4fPF|lCr M, MOCHt.^.A AMDREW T.TwANCX DAV^OM ONAF CAAUA 9 SPAINHOuR 4OHH e PCNOtev, iti. AL1,IOK QRAVES jorann c. nqqseveu 4. OHRiSrOFMER LAWtiOM OSEAOR* D. TAVLOX rOMV k. WILCOX AM G h<6KMAM ICTTV J OmOKT AaAaFA 4. 4AM> 4AME8W. SMITH CUFPOFD W. nUMXXT* DAHIEI. L. HEMNiNVTtrM AUkieON 4. C04MW|.k TODO A. 9nEE4 flISaUNIEi WfLMAM il. 9U1TH ..a. CLAfl< WIUlAM L. TCRftv, A-.. . WitLIAM t. FeTTO^, 44., >.* VAffli,'* cmte7 c. (601) 370'3323 . -i*! >, VIX FACBTMILB TRANSMISSION .r 371'-0100 MS. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ' ' li Re: Little RocX school District v. Pulaski county Special School District, et al. Dear Ann: Attached please find a copy of the draft Resolution which we have prepared for tonight's Board meeting. Also attached please find a copy of our response to Mr. Walker's fax from last Friday prepared by Bob Pressman, Please give ma a call after you have had a chance to review the Resolution. I looX forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, '^1 Jo)hhnn C. Fendiey, Jr. JCFjr/mln LI230-09O Attachments 2'd kjaij .r^ ,^W'3iaj .wdieiei 3t./ 3? Jd A, ..A jy I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Little Bock- School District ("LRSD") could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications
WHEREAS, LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the District if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task
WHEREAS, LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("OOM") in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within th District
and WHEREAS, ODM is willing to support lrsd's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD
student assignment and redeploying monitors to provide assistance to IjRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, assignm.ent resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that LRSD Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts is authorized to submit to the court appropriate pleadings as necessary to secure the time and resources needed to develop a modified education and desegregation plan for the Little Bock School District. e-d' WdlJ Mtn .widj VWTStQT 96, 9? {CBRTIFTGATB I, the undersigned Secretary of the Soard of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special meeting of the Board held on the 26th day of November, 1996. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting, th duly elected, qualified and seirving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows? Oireetor Vote (Aya, May, Abatain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law
that, to the extent required by law, due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public
that the meeting was open to the public
that a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting
that all other requirements and proceedings under the Jaw incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed
and that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. day of CERTIFIED under ay hand and seal of the District this , 1996. [SEAL] Secretary 2 f' d i-jdij m '-.tfaidj wbse.-aT 96. 93 AC>r J a *1* HERSCHEL H. <>&AY WILLIAM h SUTTON. F A. JAMES W UO0A6 STRCN M EiSEMAN, P.A. >)0E O. BELL, F.A, JOHN fi eH0k$. F.A lAMES A BUTTPY. P.A, FREDERIC* S. USSSRT. A, H.T LAR7SLERC. P.A. OSOAR E DAVrS, 4R.. P A. JAMES C. CLARK. VR., f.A THOMAS F. LEGCeTl, F.A. JOHN OeweV WATSON. P.A. RAUL e BENHAM KI, F.A. LARRV W BURKS, P.A. A WVCKLIFP NiSBtT, jR . P.A- JAMES EDWARD HARRiS. P.A. J. PNlLLlP MALCOM. P.A- JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A UEBEOITfl P. CAnCTT. P.A JAMES M. SAKTON. P A. 4, SHEPHERD RUSSELL Hb P.^- OONALQ H WILMAM THOMAS BAXYB, P.A WALTER A PAULSON (b P,A. BaRRV E. COPLIN. P.A. NlCHARD 0. YATLCH. J.OSe^H E HURS T JR.4 9 .fi,. CLiMSETH ROSBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HfiLLER, P.A. tAURA NENSvEY smith, F.A, ROCftTfl. 6HAF6R. *.A WULtAM M. OBIFStN III, F.A. ruDMAfi N. ROSE. F.A. MiQHACL S MOD At, P.A OlANE S. MACKEY, P.A WALTER M. FSEL 111, P.A. KEY!N A. CRASS, P.A VrUb^AM 1 WAOOELL, jR.. B. A 6 ,1 & Sc V FRIDAY, ELDRFDOE & CLARK A FARTNSRSKlP QF INOIVIDUAIS AMD PROF6SB1OSAL ABSOCIATIOMS ATTOHNEVB AT LAW 2000 FIRST COWMSROIAI SVltOIMO 400 WEST CAPITOL VITTIE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72JO1-3A93 tSlcphone goi.S7-seii FAX MO. so, .378.2147 November 22, 1996 SCOTT J. IAHCATCJ1. M. P A sOaCftT . BCftCH. ja . f a J UC t20WM. P A jAMh C. P.A HA#MV A. k.iHT. P.*. StOTT w. TVCttfl P.A. jOwH C^AVTCN ftAHOPtPM P.*. GUT A^TON P.A. FRiet . 0*eNfeA. P A J. MtCMACk PtCREAfi. F A TOM<A P. 40lQLe. P A. OAVe 0. W<(,80M, P A. 4SFFREY M. MOORB. P a MOPIVT T. TURFireN OAWlO M. RAP CAAtA G. SPAINHOUH JOHN C PLNOlfT, JR AkkieON GRAYEfi jONANN 0 RODseweir 4 eHftiaTfiPHEA lAW&OM ORgOGRT 0 lAViOP TOHV V *IVCOX *RAN C. HICKMAN SCTTT J. OfcMOST BAKWAI^A J. *ANO JAbCS W *MkTH CLIPFORO <f/. OANtSi. L. HCMHINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWCLL TODO A. CREER BF ffOWMVEc MraUtAM 4. SM)t^ StC eUARK WKLUM L IgRAT, P.A WILLIAM L. PATTQM. . P. A 15011 3?0'2a33 1 .vl Mr. John W, Walker (Via Fax) Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County special School District, et al Dear Mr. Walker
Roberts and I have reviewed your fax setting^ forth Joshua's perspective on the meeting of November 14, 1996. I7h
.l
.:z can see much common ground, we have two primary concerns, Dr. While we The first is your focus on solving current problems within the context of the current system. Dr. Roberts wants to change the entire system and needs six to nine months to develop, with your help, a plan to do so. If you will work with us, you can be assured that the new system will solve the "litany of problems" about which you continue to complain. This is not to say we are going to ignore the current problems There are some issues which must addressed be immediately. However, we want to change everyone's focus from trying to make a bad system work to developing a system which will ensure a first rate desegregated education for all LRSD students. Our second concern is your suggestion that an agreement cannot be reached without "progress" on the issue of attorneys' fees. As ' this will have to wait until Chris returns from out of town. We hope you will reconsider so that an agreement can be reached before the board meeting on Tuesday. a practical matter out of town. Sd As ^1 i'WlJ wn AWiaj WUSE:0T 96. 92 .M3W .3 4 -5#11/26/96 11:06 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMI N I CAT 1 ODM @002/002 Little Rock School District Special Board Meeting For Immediate Release November 26, 1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this evening. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools, will provide to the Board his assessment of the LRSD and concerns about the present approach to education and desegregation within the district. Dr. Roberts will present to the Board a resolution authorizing the presentation of pleadings to federal court for interim relief from some aspects of the desegreaation plan. During this period of time the LRSD will develop modifications to the districts educational and desegregation plan. The special meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. M ###<1 ! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION Little WHEREAS, the court has repeatedly expressed the view that the Rock School District ("r^RSD) could benefit from ii 1 modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications
students WHEREAS, LRSD Can improve its educational program for all and can enhance the prospects for the long terra desegregation of the District if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task
WHEREAS, LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ('opM) in order to develop and pi'esent to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the District
and WHEREAS, ODM could, with' court authorization, support LRSD^s efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD
redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. 1 IT IS HERESy RESOLVED that LRSD Superintendent Dr. Don Roberts is authorized to submit to the court appropriate pleadings as necessary to secure the time and resources needed to develop a modified education and desegregation plan for the Little Rock School District. Wd90
{"0 Sto. 9? ACHJ . y 'I '4*7 lil |\_ l-i TV CERTIFTCATg wt 1 -i- .".Pj I, the undersigned Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special meeting of the 'I- Board held on the 26th day of November, 1996. The Resolution
appears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting, the duly elected, qualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the ', 1 adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Director Vote (Rye, May, Abstain er Absent) I*- ' h-'' . h- 3^ r nz.' iC'i' 1 .V I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law
that, to the extent reguife<i by law, due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public
that the meeting was open to the public
that a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting
that all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed
and that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. fl day of CSRTiriED under wy hand and seal of the District this_____ , 1996. [SEAL] Secretary a V 1 f 2 ( *d I- <1 waij wn Ayaieij 9b. 92 aon t * SslTTLS ROOK SCSOOh DTSyRICi hOAS.3 OF D.IRBCTOag RBSODHTIOH Little Rock , ths court, has r&peats'aiy expressed rha visw that, ths School District (vP.SD"'i could benefit from o<Sification to its de5prsgat.ion plan and has prcvidsd sxrpert testitiony in ordor to yv. .ide Li?..SD in ths a od 1 f i c a t i ait s / developtient c-f' plan stiidenta 5'?^SBEJ4S, ajid LRSD can iKiprovs car. enhsrscs rrs a its educational, pirogra. ^
.i. pxospscts lor the long dssagragation of tn Dist.rict if given ths opportunity to davctii 'the rvsotisseary bias and resourcos to the t-sri?i UISO is preparod to work cocparativeiy wrth ths othr ..
! and with the Office of iiesfe<jrg-at.ion MohX tor ing in de.v.'i.Cip and present to the court plan laodif.ication* to . -S education nd dtsegregation yithin the Oi??triot
und COM could, 'with court euthorination, ouppoft tRSi-'s by consulting with tns x'^arties and participatij,q' in thd davR,.i.tpsont Ui a aodififed pltn for ^clucation and fusstBordgat.lt'.h -in LRgD
redepieying laonitors :> prcv.!.da assistance to LRSD in 3 budget devslcpnenfe, staff development, student asss-igntient and sselutioxi of di3cipl.iri issuss, and to withhold a'ny further Qv '.x''..or<i\.g of 'cha current LftSb plan (other than th c-oripist.'io'n of aor
.xtc:?j.ng reports presently in process
c the six to nine .nonth period ilur.tng which a siodltied education and ddsegregatior plan, vtll be developed. X':- IS S^:Ri!By RSSOLV^-a that LRSD Supe.rintsndsr.t br. Don Ro.fes'-'^? is author igsG to subKiit to rhe court appropriate pler^dir.gs ncs5.s3ry t's seevre the time and resources nafedsd to develop a modified evhjcatios's and desqrgafcron plan for the School D'Lstrict,-.. :-o * z* i S5srjl*AtiS certify
ri'
a.r y the ^'-5 ro. hi: a^iy Adopts^^ ty J.U .1 f the &X1> CsSlV ! of r of kc: J iii X 4 j tr Ji At the tiiSft Ct 'ni5Mb25r& > t
vj'i o-f the 4.'ii- br. *** W. furtbet' '.C H'itl d certify in 1 t B os VO i V Lv3 1 i'. ^. rd SGe^ .
ris? lii'itier Vigne p. i y''fk!i 'T nJ Cl'^
SO U u il KCfyait'&Z. , Si?' ent t 4- i:i<' . . t levs -: i ? y s thh Vteiat i'SapeStii -5.C r* .O)-' hy rafeisbers x-r< OX d * 1 '^' I"- 2<rsd. Bweirti t.<? ths j. t *
/
U^4r {-i t X a i Q V th:* prrper 34' i thefc I tsstystic: i in e ~i -i^,
1 .7 / d
W js. >! i. v^ 5?sas- c J ly C! -4 '7i: feif .Afe ,M.a. V? Xis V
j X 3y<?, i ctvr I i r. '1 if . V4 5Ui i. x J. tsC <- 1 "hiit J ^biXy t
,c '.ic
il h^it '..e .'- *?. f. -.4 ,7. ? : rvfd i i'F X 4 ' . f' I r * li' ie.' 1'996 11139 JOHN W, WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON mark BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. KIMBERLY R. DICKSON t. I KS i. ! FROn JOHN kl.. UALK6R P,n. TO 3?1010 P. 02 John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LiTTi.E Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile * 374-9537 November 26, 1996 Mr. Rett Tucker Flake, Tabor, Tucker, Wells & Kelly TCBY Tower, Suite 300 Little RocK, AR D&etr Retts 72201 This will acknowledge receipt of your notice of the Little Rock School Board meeting scheduled for this evening. I am currently in federal court before the Honorable Judge Harry Barnes in Texarkana, I had previously intended to try and make the meeting this evening, however. Judge Barnes has indicated that we will continue this case this afternoon until it is completed. I remain committed to working with Dr. Roberts in trying to help move the District forward. You should know, however, that we have not reached an agreement regarding our further roles in making this possible. asked Ms. I hope to you at the meeting this evening, however, I have Springer to attend and restate oxir position. Sincerely, Dictated but not read John W. Walker JWW
js cc
Dr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Don Roberts Clay Pendley Chris Heller Ann Brown Robert Pressman Z kHdiiaaii TOTAL P.02 ts 11 / Ci .a J l .'1 ':S i 3 * -J , :''T is '4V. i -( M J I fl 6 <4 'A 3"^4 ' < . .11:06 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMVNICATl ODM 2 ^wubI Little Rock School District For Immediate Release November 26, 1996 002-002 Special Board Meeting For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this evening. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools, will provide to the Board his assessment of the LRSD and concerns about the present approach to education and desegregation within the district. Dr. Roberts will present to the Board a resolution authorizing the presentation of pleadings to federal court for interim relief from some aspects of the desegregation plan. During this period of time the LRSD will develop modifications to the districts : f educational and desegregation plan. -'I. 1'j, The special meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD .4 Administration Building, 810 West Markham. if.' ### '' ' j
i -t 4 .5 J i 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (901)324-2000 * WWW JOHN W. WALKER, PA. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 rOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. KIMBERLY R. DICKSON December 5, 1996 Honorable Judge Susan W^ber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. RCSSD U.SD.C No. LR-C-S2-866 Judge Wright: In the first paragraph of my letter, it may appear to some that I am indicating there is some conflicts between my office and ODM. This is to clarify that the conflicts to which I referred are those between Joshua and the school district parties. ODM is not a party. Please accept this clarification. Thank you. .cerely, '1 John W. Walker JWW
lp cc: Ms, Ann Brown 12/06.-1996 12:11 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 02 /OHN W. WALKER, PA.. 1723 Broadway Little Ruck, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHI^^GTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR KIMBERLYR. OICKSON December 5,1996 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD U.S.D.C No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright
i 1 1 I i I } I As counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, I am persuaded that the interim superintendent, Dr. Don Roberts, will act in good faith to achieve the objectives of the desegregation plan and to otherwise address the educational needs of our class members. I am also persuaded that he will approach the matter as originally contemplated in a spirit of cooperation and mediation rather than one of antagonistic adversariness. I have met with him by telephone and in person at least a half dozen times in the last three weeks to get some understanding of how he will try to make things better in the District. During this time, I have described to him our concerns both in writing and verbally. Several of these meetings involved Ms. Ann Brown of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. He is aware of the conflicts which exist between us and he is aware that there are a number of people in the school district of both races who have reservations about an approach of cooperation rather than confrontation. The plan calls for cooperation, but the parties have been adversary due to different leaders and leadership styles of the District during a time which has seen the departure of every architect of the plan itself. Dr. Roberts has inherited a situation where there is literally no one on staff who was involved in a high level capacity with the creation and underlying justification of many of the plans' features and objectives. He is literally in a posture where he will have to recreate the wheel so to speak and where some degree of plan modification may well be needed if the educational needs and priorities of black school children are to be effectively addressed.12/06/1996 12:12 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P . 03 k' Page Two December 6, 1996 I i I ! i The ODM staff, through its monitoring experiences, may provide the nexus between the plan formulators and the present staff capable of advising and assisting Dr. Roberts as he seeks to bring a different character to this troubled school district. I share his view that he could profit from a different kind of association from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring than that of the last two administrations, one which gives respect to the roles and duties of the court as well as the commitment of the ODM staff to the achievement of the plan objectives. Although I have reservations about requesting that the court enlarge or modify OOM'S role, I believe that there is compelling urgency to such an approach, for a short period of time, if the educational needs of black children are to be met and given the priority required by law. I, therefore, request that you allow Ms. Brown and her staff to work closely, affirmatively and on a day to day basis with Dr. Roberts on operational activities such as the development of the budget. We also expect to work closely with Dr. Roberts but with the caveat that we will continue to monitor the situation and otherwise seek to protect the rights of our class members. Dr. Roberts has made these promises: 1) He will implement the plan as approved by the Court until it is modified with Court approval
2) He will seek to lead the Board and the community to understand the necessity for genuine interracial cooperation and involvement in every level of school operation
3) He will promote the retention and equal treatment of minority students and he will see to it that teachers actually engage in teaching them with the same fervor and commitment that is exhibited toward children of privilege
4) He has pledged to integrate what has become, with but one or two exceptions, an all white administrative staff and he will take sensitive action to ensure that there are no one race staffed departments in the school system
5) He commits to staff development which promotes interracial staff associations and cooperation rather than allowing proliferation of separatist activities within schools
6) He commits to activity involvement of all children in something through which each may feel that he/she is an integral part of the school system, 7) He commits to more meaningtul parental involvement with black parents being given equal respect of their views and needs regarding their children
8) He commits to a reduction of disciplinary punishments for insignificant and petty offenses and the substitution of an educational program which emphasizes that children should expect the school to teach them alternative ways for conflict resolution and for understanding the way the educational system is supposed to work
12/06/1996 12 13 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 04 F Page Three December 6,1996 9) He commits to continuing the District's practices to the develop and maintain a viable pool of qualified minority staff tlirough the binder program, a uniform salary schedule and identifiable nondiscriminatory criteria for the selection, placement and promotion of staff
10) He commits to devoting serious and prompt attention to evaluation and assessment of prosrams and activities, as well as a program development and implementation by which achievement disparities may be eliminated and/or otherwise improved. Many of these concerns and commitments may be the subject of modification of the desegregation plan with our approval. To avoid later con&sion, I do note that we do not envision a direct role for ODM in the development or approval of any modifications. Dr. Roberts asks for our cooperation for what is a relatively brief period of time in the history of this case a six to nine month period of time. I am willing to give it to him provided the court sees fit to approve his request. In closing, I must say that the District is in the plight that it is, in large part, due to a number of feilures for which both we and the Court must take some responsibility. I must say that the court's oversight of this case has been essential, but it is our considered view that recalcitrant district officials challenged the court to force them to act and when the Court did not act, other than to issue words of condemnation, it set a tone for further inaction and dereliction which brings us to the point where we are today. The request here will allow all of us an opportunity for much needed redemption. Thank you for your cooperation truly yours, /'.John W. W^er JWWijs cc: All Coujsel Clerk ofthe Court Ms. Am Brown Dr. DofRobertsIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82866 RECEP PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL Office of Desesregation MonitotuitiNTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL -- INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted. however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM'') in order to develop and present to the courtplan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval. support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD
by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development. staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline 2issues
and by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD
to redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues
and, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: (781083) J Christopher Hell John C. Fendley, Jr.' (#92182) r^hfTnr\innfnfy*ihwriiig> phn (knf 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop mail on this aLe Joy deposBeang a copy of same in the United States day of , 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- West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Cttflstopher Helle: John C. Fendley, Jr. 4t 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 REGESVE'.n Uu MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC 6 1996 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desesregafion Moniioring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOP! P PERIOD lylW The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard. the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, "We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from the f:\haijc\fcndicy\irtd\bri-pbiuiev1 PCSSD." Id. Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month plan development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development, staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD
by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as 'The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota. Inc, V. Wray. 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified modification. myriad of changed circumstances County School See. Board, e.g., 978 Jacksonville Branch, which justify NAACP V. Duval F.2d 1574, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992)("Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered."). a f:^ionK\ieodlcy\lndUjri-pUii.dev 2budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues
and by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. LRSD prays that ODM be authorized to support LRSD in this manner so that modifications of the LRSD Desegregation can be developed and so LRSD can take a step closer to its goal of providing all LRSD students a quality desegregated education. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: ristopher Hi John C. Fendley, e: (#81083) . (#92182) f:yxnc\ieodley\irtd\bri-pliiulcv 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peopL^^ mail on this ly depositing a copy of same in the United States day of , 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 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 opher Hell John C. Fendley, Jr., f:\homB\feadky\bd^ri-pbux.dev 4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT DEC 1 6 1996 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. MCbonwmv.s bttKh WESTERN DIVISION gy. DEF CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEC 1 7 1996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregalion Monitoring INTERVENORS EASTc^*^*' njQT-'*'~ - MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEADING For its motion, the Little Rock School District states: 1. On May 17, 1996 the Little Rock School District filed a Mtion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. The motion was denied on September 23, 1996. LRSD filed a timely motion for reconsideration on October 2, 1996. 2. On December 6, 1996, the Little Rock School District filed a Motion For Approval of Plan Development Period. In that motion, LRSD asked the court for a period of time within which to work with the parties to improve education and desegregation in LRSD and to develop necessary modif ications to the LRSD desegregation plan. That process, if successful, could result in the abandonment by LRSD of its motion for reconsideration. 3. LRSD would prefer to commit its resources to a cooperative education and desegregation reform effort than to litigate its Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction so long as the prospects are good for a cooperative and productive reform process. LRSD therefore asks the court for permission to withdraw its motion for reconsideration subject to refiling no later than September 30, 1997. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order withdrawing and removing from the docket its motion for reconsideration subject to its right to refile the motion no later than September 30, 1997. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By*v istopher Hell Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Withdraw Pleading as been served on the following by in the United States mail on this ^day depositing copy of same of December, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 2Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 iristopher Hell 3 002 12'17'96 11:45 FRIDAY LAW FIRM FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL M. KBiDAY lieSX-IBVAl WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISIMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. USSERY. P.A. H.T. LARJELCRC. P-A. OSCAR E. OAVIB. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LCOCCTT. P-A. JOHN DEWEY WATBON. Paul B- BENHAM III, P.A. larry W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EOWARO HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SiMPBON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P-A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A, J. BHEPHERO RUBSELL III, P-A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BAHRY . COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH . HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HCNBLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P-A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN 111. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P,A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. OIANE a. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. A partnership op inoividuals ano professional associations ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST commercial BUILDINO 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3483 TELEPHONE 601-378-2011 FAX NO, 601-378-2147 December 17, 1996 8COTTJ. LAWCA8TEII. R.A. M. OAYLC CQULCY, F-A. HQBCDT B. hack. JR.. r.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMEH C. BARER, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. UHT, P.a- BCQTT H. tucker, P.A- JOHN ciAVTaN Randolph, p.a. aUY ALTON WADS, P-A. PRICE C. CAHQNift. P A. J. UiCMAEk PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JCNEB. P.a. DAVID 0. WILSON, P. A, JEFFREY H. MOORE, P. A. ANDREW T- TURNER DAVIO U. QRAF CARLA D. dPAINHQUR JOHN C. FENOLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONAHN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON onCOOBY 0. TAYLOR TONY U. WILCOX FRAN C, HICKMAN BETTY J. OCMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BOND DANIEL L. HERRINCrOM ALLISON J. CORNWELL TODD A, CREEH e* eouwatL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S- CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P.A i60n 370-1608 VMlTIt'* AUfCT HO. FAX Mr. John w. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 722OS Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Dear Ann and John: I have enclosed a draft of a stipulation which would approve the entry of an order containing the provisions of our original proposed stipulation and those items (discipline, good faith, Joshua and ODM monitoring reports, and staff development) suggested by John Walker at our last meeting. Please let me _ know if this document will provide a sufficient basis for discussions to make a meeting today worthwhile. 12-17-96 11:46 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM 003 If a meeting today will be helpful, it must be held from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. in order to accommodate everyone's schedule. I have asked everyone to reserve that time for a possible meeting at Ann Brown's office. Yours vj Christopher Heller CJH/k Enc. cc: Dr Don Roberts12 '1- -96 11:46 O FRIDAY LA"' FIRM 004 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 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION The Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) will agree to the entry of an order which contains the following provisions and statements by the court: 1. The court grants LRSD's Motion For Approval of Plan Development Period, 2 This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expert testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 3 LRSD believes that it can improve its educational program for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in order to develop and present to 12'17 '96 11:47 FRIDAY LAW FIRM @003 the court a plan to improve education and desegregation within the district. 4 The Joshua intervenors believe that certain components of the present LRSD desegregation plan have proved unsuccessful and that black students and parents within LRSD can benefit from a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD. The Joshua Intervenors are prepared to work cooperatively with LRSD in order to develop such a plan. 5 The Knight intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 6 PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a new education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this stipulation. 7 The parties expect that they can work cooperatively to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for the improvement of education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation plan. 8 In order to allow LRSD to commit the necessary effort to the cooperative development of an improved education and desegregation plan, LRSD and Joshua agree to withdraw all pending motions concerning compliance or lack of compliance with the 212'1'96 11:48 FRIDAY LA'V FIRM @006 present LRSD Desegregation Plan. Joshua also agrees to discontinue any on-site monitoring at LRSD schools and to refer any disciplinary issues, other than expulsion issues, to an ombudsman selected by LRSD with input from ODM and Joshua for resolution. 9 LRSD and Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM is willing to support the effort described in this stipulation by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD
redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for the six to nine month period during which a new education and desegregation plan will be developed. 10. The parties agree to support LRSD's request for a court order approving this stipulation and to participate in a good faith effort to develop and present to the court within six to nine months an improved plan for education and desegregation in LRSD which will modify the plan under which LRSD presently operates. 11 The court understands that as a part of the process to improve desegregation and education within LRSD, LRSD will take 312 17/96 11:48 FRIDAY LA"' FIRM @007 into account the recommendations made by Joshua and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in their monitoring reports. 12 The court expects the parties to work together in a good faith effort to improve education and desegregation within LRSD. 13 The court understands that the LRSD superintendent will work with administrators, teachers, counselors and staff to ensure that the student discipline system within LRSD provides fair, even handed and appropriate discipline in a non-discriminatory matter. 14 The court understands that during the time for development of an improved plan for education and desegregation in LRSD that LRSD will provide an appropriate staff development program for principals, teachers and counselors. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. John W, Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: John W. Walker Bar No. By 5------------------- Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 412 -17 '96 11:49 FRIDAY LA"' FIRM @ DOS CERTIFICATE OF. SERVI-CE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Stipulation has served on the following by depositing copy of same in the Uni. in the United States mail on this 17th day of December, 1996. Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller 5FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT DEC 3 0 1996 Ofiice 01 Desegieijaii. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION jAMtS I-** -<'. 27 1996 fiMAGK, CLtni DEPT. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * * * * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD") for approval of a plan development period to which the Joshua Intervenors have responded. Upon careful review of the motion, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. A. On numerous occasions, the Court has expressed the view that modifications of the LRSDs desegregation plan might be appropriate. In an attempt to assist the parties, the Court itself called experts who testified concerning potential areas for modification. However, the 290 1Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a si-\ to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Specifically, the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. The LRSD asks that the Court redeploy monitors to provide assistance to the district in a refl s such as budget development, staff development, student assignment, and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD desegregation plan for a six to nine month period. The LRSD states that the Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for the LRSD, and that the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District support the effort described in the motion. While the Joshua Intervenors respond generally in a favorable manner to the new superintendent and the motion, they also express some reservations. Because the ODM operates as an arm of the Court, the Joshua Intervenors urge that the ODM not participate in negotiations between the parties, unless the ODM agrees not to report the content of such negotiations to the Court. Further, the Joshua Intervenors urge the Court to appoint additional monitors to work on matters of particular concern to them, namely alleged ill-treatment of class members. See docket entry 2885. The Court finds that the parties, particularly the LRSD, will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The ODM has assured the Court that the 2functions of monitoring and assistance can and will be kept separate during this period. The Court declines at this time to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. Should the ODM determine during the course of this plan development period that it needs additional staff, the Court will address the issue at that time. The Court will not prevent the ODM from advising the LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. However, neither the ODM nor the Court is a party to this litigation and the ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. The Court will rule on any plan modifications on the basis of the evidence and the record in the case, including orders of the Eighth Circuit. B. Pending before the Court are the Joshua Intervenors motions for relief concerning the incentive schools, for implementation of recommendations of the ODM, and for a hearing on those motions. In light of the Courts approval of a period during which the LRSD intends to develop a modified education and desegregation plan, the Court denies without prejudice the motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors. Should the Joshua Intervenors wish to refile the motions, they must do so within thirty (30) days following the submission by the LRSD of its modified plan. C. Also before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to withdraw its motion to reconsider the Courts ruling on the LRSDs motion to end federal court jurisdiction. The motion is 3granted. The LRSD has until and including September 30, 1997, within which to refile its motion for reconsideration. D. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSDs motion for a plan development period [docket entry 2878] is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joshua Intervenors motions [docket entries 2680, 2705, & 2812] are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRSDs motion [docket entry 2890] to withdraw the motion for reconsideration [docket entry 2831] is granted. SO ORDERED this ^7 day of December 1996. "UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 'HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN A MPUANCE WITH RULE 5 AND^DR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 4 ri 1^0-27-96 FRl 16:07 ''V SUSAN WMRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * 4c * No. LR-C-82-866 P. 02 FILED . us. DISTRICT COURT , , 4 EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS S OEG 27 1996 .1' PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL, , Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * 45? lAMtS i^MAQK, OUrJ DEPT. CLERK w ( f ' / . ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for approval of a plan development period to which the Joshua Intervenors have responded. Upon careful t review of the motion, the Cotirt finds that the motion should be granted. A. ii' 4 On numerous occasions, the Court has expressed the view that modification.^ of the LRSDs desegregation plan might be appropriate. In an attempt to assist the parties, the Court itself called experts who testified concerning potential areas for modification. However, the 1 <1 a IP. li til / V %[^EC-?7-96 FRI 16:08 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Court has noted that the parties themselves must develop and present any proposed modifications. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a six to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. Specifically, the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM") to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. The LRSD asks that the Court redeploy monitors to provide assistance to the district in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignment, and resolution of discipline issues, and to withhold any further monitoring of the cunent LRSD desegregation plan for a six to nine month period. The LRSD states that the Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for the L,RSD, and that the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District support the effort described in the motion. While the- Joshua Intervenors respond generally in a favorable manner to the new superintendent and the motion, they also express some reservations. Because the ODM operates as an arm of the Court, the Joshua Intervenors urge that the ODM no ticipate in negotiations between the parties, unless the ODM agrees not to report the content such negotiations to the Court. Further, the Joshua Intervenors urge the Court to appoint additional monitors to work on matters of particular concern to them, namely alleged ill-treatment of class members, See docket entry 2885, The Court finds that the parties, particularly the LRSD, will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The ODM has assured the Court that the 2 i^C-27
9e FRI 16:08 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX HO, 5013246576 P. 04 functions of monitoring and assistance can and will be kept separate during this period. The Court declines at this time to direct the ODM to employ additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members. Should the ODM determine during the course of this plan development period that it needs additional staff, the Court will address the issue at that time, Tlie Court will not prevent the ODM from advising die LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. However, neither the ODM nor the Court is a party to this litigation and the ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party. The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. The Court will rule on any plan modifications on the basis of the evidence and the record in the case, including orders of the Eighth Circuit. B. Pending before the Court are the Joshua Intervenors motions for relief concerning the incentive schools, for implementation of recommendations of the ODM., and for a hearing on those motions, In light of the Courts approval of a period during which the LRSD intends to develop a modified education and desegregation plan, the Court denies without prejudice the motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors. Should the Joshua Intervenors wish to refile the motions, they must do so within thirty (30) days following the submission by the LRSD of its modified plan. C. Also before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to withdraw its motion to reconsider the Courts ruling on the LRSDs motion to end federal court jurisdiction. The motion is 3 Mi ikiil ilT ^E0-27
96 FRI 16:09. SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 -4 'i granted. The LRSD has until and including September 30, 1997, within which to refile its motion for reconsideration. .1 D. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSDs motion for a plan development period [docket entry 28781 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joshua Inter>enors motions [docket entries 2680, 2705. & 2812] are denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the LRSDs motion [docket entry 2890] to withdraw the motion for reconsideration [docket entry 2831] is granted. SO ORDERED this of December 1996. 1 I 7' (- ijn
4 JUDGE S. .1. 1 k' Tj.' 1 ''.J. Iriihi IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION J . f 1 . .. clerk LITTLE V. rock school district, et al. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS Lj
.-. CLthk PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED INTERVENORS DfcC 3 0 1996 INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER INTERVENORS SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNEKbrtih' Office of Desegregation Monitoring Response Joshua Interv'enbfs to" the LRSD' s plan ODM. Motion for the. of the Joshua intervenors co cue - Approval of A Plan Development Period The LRSD has filed a motion referring to a six to nine month development period. The relief sought in the motion relates to Motion, 12\6\96, at 3. That office would "consult with the parties and participate" in the development of a modified plan
it would "redeploy monitors" to provide more direct forms of assistance to LRSD
it would withhold additional monitoring of the LRSD for the six to nine month period. This memorandum sets forth Joshua Intervenors' reaction to the LRSD motion. It is appropriate to begin with some reference to the status of the case. These motions concerning intervenors filed a the incentive schools number of months ago two and ODM recommendations. These motions are grounded in the view of Joshua's representatives, and the repeated findings of the court and ODM, that LRSD officials and their agents have implemented the agreements in an inadequate 1manner. It remains the view of the Joshua intervenors that the central problem has been the unwillingness to implement the agreements, not the agreements themselves. a Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors are willing to respond in positive manner to the view of the interim superintendent that ways can be developed to achieve in a better manner the objectives of the agreements. As reflected by lead counsel's letter to the court of December 5, 1996, counsel views the interim superintendent as a person of ability and integrity. The Joshua Intervenors will respond in a prompt and good faith manner to proposals to modify the agreements with regard to the LRSD. These intervenors may well suggest provisions to address problems in the areas mentioned in lead counsel's letter to the court of December 5 (at 2-3). LRSD and Joshua representatives are in the process of discussing ways in which perceived problems of class members, in the area of discipline for example, can be addressed in a better fashion, but with lesser demands on the interim superintendent's time. The objective of this effort is to allow the superintendent to focus on his ideas for plan modifications and systemic efforts to address some of the problems surfaced by these intervenors. Our reactions to the specific proposals regarding ODM are as follows. First. ODM is, in substance, a part of the court's staff. It serves as the court's eyes and ears. It gathers facts and generates ideas for the court. It seems to serve as confidant for the court. This being the case, we believe that limits on ODM's participation 2in the process of developing and considering proposed plan modifications are necessary. Development by ODM of proposed modifications in areas identified by the parties should be welcomed, as well as party. However, ODM ODM reactions to proposals initiated by a should not participate in the parties* negotiations unless it is agreed upon, unambiguously, that ODM will not report the content of negotiations to the court. The parties can present to the court any agreed upon changes in the plans, as well as periodic status reports on their progress. Second. The Joshua Intervenors are supportive of the notion of ODM staff playing different roles in the LRSD, subject to our recommendations, filed on December 13, 1996, that there be additional ODM staff to work on the matter of ill-treatment of class members. This ill-treatment prevents, in far too many cases. the achievement of the objectives of the agreements. Moreover, there are needs for monitoring in the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Third. The proposal concerning additional monitoring in the LRSD for the six to nine month period is acceptable. with the exception of the new form of monitoring, by additional staff. identified in intervenors' submission of December 13, 1996. Conclusion The Joshua Intervenors agree to the entry of an order 3consistent with the views set forth in this response. Respecfully submitted, abhn W. Walker, / 64046 Uohn V. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman MA # 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 copy of the Joshua Intervenors' I hereby certify that a foregoing response has been mailed to all counsel of record on this 18th day of December 1996. "John W. Walker / 4RECEIVE JAN 2 4199? OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING HARVARD UNIVERSITY Graduate School of Education Gutman Library 442 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Gary Orfield Professor of Education and Social Policy phone: 617-496-4824 fax: 617-496-3095 January 21, 1997 TO: Ann Brown and associates FROM: Gary Orfield I was very happy to hear about the new court order and your expanded responsibilities. Best of luck in the important work in the coming months. I think that some substantial improvements should not be very difficult to identify.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 January 22, 1997 Dr. Mary Prentice Department of Teacher Education UALR 2801 So. University Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Mary: Thanks so much for your message volunteering yourself to help during the coming year. I would welcome your assistance! Your skills, insights, and optimism and would be assets indeed. I promise to keep your generous offer in mind as Don Roberts and I are developing our initial plan of action in the next few weeks. Thank you so much for your kind offer, Mary. I'll keep you posted on developments. Sincerely yours, I \ Ann S. BrownRECEIVED FEB 2 1 L/iQ St OmCEOF OESEGREGMIONMONITORUIG STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Listed below are the committees that are actively implementing the plan and completing the work designated for Year One, the meeting dates of the committees, and a brief synopsis of the work accomplished. STRATEGY ONE: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. COMMIITeE: Gene Parker (W), lead administrator, Lillie Carter (B), Eleanor Cox (B), Gwen Ziegler (B), Cynthia Jefferson (B), Malinda Martin (B), Lisa Maxwell (W), Opal Rice (W), Nancy Swaty (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Kris Huffman (W), Judy Milam (W), Judy Teeter (W). MEETING DATES: Three, 3-hour work sessions were held in March/April 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISECED
Definitions for content standards, performance standards, and delivery standards have been developed and are ready for submission to the Superintendent for Board approval. In the areas of language arts/reading and math in grades K-5, the hierarchy of key skills/knowledge, rubrics, and skills mastery continuum have been completed and were piloted in the K-5 summer program. The first draft of the hierarchy, rubrics, and skills mastery continuum has been completed in social studies and science. This strategy is also addressing the integration of the SCANS skills into the standards process. The core committee of Gene Parker (W), Carol Green (B), Marie McNeal (B), Linda Young (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Vanessa Cleaver (B) has met on November 26 and December 20, 1996. An additional meeting was held with Gene Parker and Vic Anderson on Dec. 20 to discuss progress of committee.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TWO: We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives of the strategic plan. No implementation committee has been appointed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY THREE
We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on the standardized tests or who are at risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum. COMMITTEE
Vic Anderson, lead administrator (W), Leon Adams (B), Jo Evelyn Elston (B), Gene Parker (W), Dennis Glasgow (W), Margaret Gremillion (W), Patty Kohler (W), Sadie Mitchell (B), Leon Modeste (B), Susan Merry (W), Ann Blaylock (W), Sammy Grandy (B), Rick Woole (W), Linda Young (W). The committee is slated to be expanded to include teachers, principals, parents, and community members. (A middle school committee functioned as a separate committee. This committee was convened with full approval of the Board of Directors and met regularly from December, 1994 through April, 1996. List available if needed.) MEETING DATES
Dec. 15, 1995
Jan. 11, Jan. 18, Jan.3O, Jan.31, Feb.6, March 3, March 4, March 11, March 15, May 31, July 23, July 24, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED
A policy on retention and promotion was revised to include early intervention and approved by the Board in September, 1996. A policy to formalize intervention as a step in the educational process was developed and approved by the Board in September, 1996. The Reading Recovery program was expanded in four elementary schools. The middle school committee completed an extensive report and business case including a three year district wide transition work plan to implement middle schools (grades 6-8). The report and recommendations were presented to the board in April, 1996. The delivery system at the Alternative Learning Center was expanded to include the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the students. A business case was written, approved, a committee (list available if needed) appointed to develop curriculum, training provided to all staff on the new curriculum and implementation began in September, 1996. Training teachers interested in the Math/Science Crusade (K-12) was continued with 95 teachers participating in the 95-96 school year and an additional 29 participating in the 96-97 school year.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOUR: We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support. COMMItieE: The Alliance marketing committee has been serving as the committee to support this strategy in the area of external communications issues. Internal issues have been handled by the communications department staff. MEETING DATES: Full committees and sub-committees met on Jan. 12, Feb. 27, March 12, March 27, April 10, May 1, May 22, June 10, June 12, July 11, July 17, July 22, July 24, Aug. 14, Sept. 17, Nov. 22, Dec. 4, Dec. 19, and Dec. 20, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: To achieve positive relationships with key members of the media, discussions have occurred with media representatives by the Superintendent, business leaders through the Little Rock Alliance for our Public Schools and the communications staff. To expand the available tools to positively influence the perceptions of parents and other audiences, four new brochures have been produced aimed at various target audiences. New video equipment has been purchased and a new staff person hired for expanded video coverage of the district. Twenty-five public relations training sessions were held at the schools during the fall semester. Information provided will assist teachers, counselors and other school staff in incorporating positive public relations in their work with various audiences. To improve the existing system designed to direct media to the appropriate source, on-going training and communication continues between principals, key communicators and the Communications Office.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FIVE: We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations-to address external issues that are interfering with our students learning. COMMITTEE
Debbie Milam (W), lead administrator, Sandy Becker (B), community chairman, Beverly Miller (W), Gail Nickerson (W), Charles Nickerson (W), Lou Miller (W), Bob Hightower (W), Loretta Alexander (B), Zenobia Harris (B), Johnnie Bradford (B), Richard Bell (B), Boyd Ward (W), Carol Scott (W), Helen Leigh (W), Mike Vogler (W), Charles Moore (B), Liz Lucker (W). MEETING DATES: May 29, June 22, August 13, September 9, October 14, November 19, and December 17, 1996
Jan. 28, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: Drafts of three proposed school board policies have been prepared and submitted to the Superintendent for Board approval. The committee prepared a business case to support their recommendations for additional resources needed to implement Strategy Five. A list of activity suggestions for partnerships between churches and schools was prepared by the committee for use in recruiting more churches to become Partners in Education. A $20,000 grant was received to begin the Community Mobilization Program with the local schools, neighborhood groups, community groups, youth serving groups in the various neighborhoods, and the citys alert centers. The committee has met with the grant writer to discuss district grant writing efforts and results. The Vital Link program will assist in meeting the goal of expanding the development of business and community partner coalitions with focus on job shadowing experiences. The committee has been reviewing the Beacons Initiative as a pilot program as the initial step in designing and ensuring availability of and access to comprehensive support services for all LRSD students.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SIX: We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to . ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. COMMITTEE
Brady Gadberry, lead administrator. No implementation committee. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: All job descriptions are to be consistent and specific. Dr. Hurley surveyed administrative staff and is working to rewrite the job descriptions as needed. He reports that 25% of this task has been completed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SEVEN: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. COMMITTEE
Marion Woods(B), lead administrator, Phil Burch (W), Beth Munson (W), Leon Modeste (B), Linda Joshua (B), Debbie Glasgow (W), Linda Young (W), Vicki Armstead (B), BUI Geiger (W), Lun McCall (B), Ann Mangan (W), Betty Mitchell (W), John Walker (B), Linda Pondexter (B), Richard Rochell (W), Sterling Ingram (B), Betty Raper (W), Rett Tucker (W), Dean Johnson (B), Patty Kohler (W), Ed Jackson (W), Pat Price (W). MEETING DATES: April 28, May 23, July 19, Aug, 2, Sept. 5, Sept. 23, Oct. 28, 1996, and February 24, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: The staff development council was reformulated and the membership expanded according to the recommendations. The council is to complete a district wide analysis of the staff development program. The council is in the process of developing a staff development evaluation form. The council suggested that 150 school districts around the United States be canvassed to gather forms and suggestions on this issue. The National Staff Development Council has also been providing support and ideas on this issue. The final form for LRSD will be designed specifically for this district.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY EIGHT: We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. COMMITieE: Patty Kohler (W), lead administrator, Sadie Mitchell (B), Gene Parker (W), Lillie Carter (B), Manan Shead (B), Darrall Paradis (W), Eleanor Coleman (B), Mary Menking (W), Doug Eaton (W), Margaret Leigh (W), Margaret Gremillion (W), Sharon Brooks (B), Cassandra Norman (B), CharUe Neal (W), Donna Stiles (W), JiU MeUroy (W), Rudolph Howard (B), Leon Adams (B), Mabie Donaldson (B), Faith Donovan (W), Anne Mangan (W), Junious Babbs (B), JuUe Davenport Paula Padilla (W), EUean Cleveland (B), Pat Boykin (B), Pat Higginbotham Marian Lacey (B), Vic Anderson (W), Cathy Collins (W), Gayle Bradford (W), Marcus Moore (B), Jackie Moore (W), .Stsphanic Walker (B), Morlin McCoy (B), Betty Raper (W), Diann Chase (B), Gail Shelton (B), Carol Green (B), Linda Johnson (B), Mildren Walker (B), Shirley Ferguson (B), Kristie Robinson (B), Leon Modeste (B), Linda Young (W) and Teresa Courtney (W). MEETING DATES: Dec. 15, 1995
Jan.ll, Jan.18, Jan.23, Jan.28, Feb. 19, March 11 April 8 Mav 6 Aug. 21, 1996. ' WORK ACCOMPLISHED: A core committee began the primary work by focusing on developing a process and framework for the implemenution of site-based management to allow individual schools choice in terms of best meeting the needs of their students. Research, published articles and implementation efforts in other districts were provided to the core committee. The committee began the process of reflecting on and studying the issues involved, articulating how the district currently operates and discussing how this distnet could best operate in the future. The committee functioned as a study group so that ey could begin to operate from a common knowledge base, create conditions for thinking beyond the current state of operations, dare to dream of more effective ways for the system to function, frame the thinking specifically for the LRSD, share common language, and begin to forge shared thinking on what and how site-based management can be used to assist in meeting the districts mission. The committee developed initial responses to the following questions: 1) What results are expected from implementing a site-based decision making process in the district? 2) What has to be created at the district level for site-councils to be effective at reaching the anticipated results? 3) What support will be needed and how will it be provided? 4) What actions are needed to lead this change initiative? 5) What is a timeiy/reasonable time firame for successfill and effective implementation? A draft position paper defining the critical issues and the specific actions needed from the educational system of the LRSD to prepare and implement an effective model of site-based management for the LRSD included five major areas: 1) Articulation of policy, rationale and belief^ 2) Parameters for decision making and processes for evaluating decisions, 3) Definition of a model of a Good School to serve as a standard and guidelines for assessing progress toward the standard, 4) Skills and knowledge needed and training plan (district & local), 5) E.\pectations and roles of personnel and guidelines for council membership. a A district wide invitation for participation was extended to all teachers and administrators across the district. The response is reflected in the total committee listed above. This expanded committee is now assigned to one of the five major issues/action areas. A plan of how these committees will function and produce the needed products has been completed.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY NINE: We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district. COMMITTEE: Mark Milhollen (W), lead administrator. Bob Beach (W), Keith Cox (W), J. Ralston Creswell (W), Ernie Davis (W), Hugh Earnest (W), John Gardner (B) Co- Chair, Dewayne Holmes (B), Betty Mitchell (^, Bob Morgan (V^, Rich Nagel Tim Scott (B), Steve Shults (W), Andy Terry (W), Mark McBryde (W), John Nimmer (B), Earl Weniger (W), Judy Magness (W). MEETING DATES: Nov. 16, Dec. 7, Dec. 14, Dec. 21, 1995
Jan. 4, Jan. 11, Jan. 18, Feb. 15, March 12, May 7, 1996. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: The committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the next two to three years are crucial transition years for the LRSD and that some fundamental changes must be made and communicated to the public in the way the LRSD conducts its business. This committee recommended that the LRSD Board of Directors utilize the following eight point process in developing its 96-97 budget and forecast: 1) Determine revenue projections, 2) Determine educational programs to be provided, 3) Determine the facilities to be utilized in delivering programs, 4) Consider non-school level program/personnel reductions, 5) Determine wages and benefits level, 6) Optimize student/stafF ratios, 7) Start Desegregation Plan modification process, if required, 8) Seek additional revenue, if required. The committee met with the board on several occasions during the budget process. The board failed to take any action on the recommendations of the committee.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TEN: We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. COMMIIteE: Jo Evelyn Elston (B), lead administrator, Vic Anderson (W), co-chair, Bobby Jones, (W), Frances Dedner (B), Minnie Thompson (B), Tim Fullerton (W), Kathy Wells (W), Jane Meadows (W), Steve Bradley (B), Wiley Branton (B), Neddie Nichols (B), Bettye Robinson (B), Linda Watson (B), W. W. Williams (W), Lillie Carter (B), Pat Gee (W), Rich Robbins (W), Cory Anderson (B), Ed Streeter (B), Patty Kohler (W) Steve Shults (W), Stella Watson (B), Bruce Moore (B), Janet Buford Nancy Rousseau (W), Mary Jane Cheatham (W), Valerie Hudson (B). mee ting DATES: April. 29, June 3, July 10, Oct. 2, Dec. 12, 1996. Next scheduled meetings dates are March 6, 1997 and June 5, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED: Conflict resolution training and skill development for students as been implemented and commercial curriculum has been adopted for use in the secondary schools. Training was conducted for teachers October 16-19, 1996. All secondary buses have been equipped with 2-way radios
additional security has been assigned to monitor buses and bus stops. Additional cameras have been added to the buses. Training for bus drivers has been provided. Additional security equipment has been added to control access to school buildings, grounds, and events. A pilot program for evaluating security devices has begun at Central High and the Alternative Learning Center. A program to assist staff in full understanding safety policies and procedures has been implemented and is on-going. To enhance communications throughout the community regarding the safety and security issue, efforts to address this have occurred at Town Hall meetings, Superintendent Chat sessions, PTA council and PTA Board meetings. The Safety and Security Department is developing a manual on How to Establish a Parent Patrol for schools and transportation. In order to better inform the public about the control of drug activity, violence prevention, and safety issues, the student handbook was distributed August 10, 1996 to neighborhood associations, parents, businesses, and city government. 1,000 extra copies of the manual were printed for community distribution.STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ELEVEN
We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district. COMMIITeE
John Ruffin (B) lead administrator, Richard Kennedy (W) chairman, Sam Branch (B), Susan Schoessel (W), Kenyon Lowe (B), Carletta Burchett (B), Debby Herden (W), Tom Smith (W), Sandra Hoff (W), Tom Alstadt (W), Lucy Lyon (^, Barbara Kennedy (W), Richard Kirchmeier (W), Cesar Compadre (W), Manlynn Hendricks (W), Chuck Morse (W), Max Brantley (W), Scott Kristie Winthrop Rockefeller (Vf), John Riggs (W), Susan Beard (W), Charles Moore (B), Lou Ethel Nauden (B),Lynn Leidigh (W), Charles Moore (B), John Walker (B), Larry Berkley (W), Tom Malone (W). MEETING DATES
July 24, Aug. 14, Sept. 4, Oct. 8, Oct. 29, Nov. 26, 1996, Feb. 20, 1997. WORK ACCOMPLISHED
A definition for technology in terms of the educational and administrative needs of the LRSD has been developed. A broad based technology advisory board for the LRSD has been established. The committee articulated three major areas of initial focus
1) Procurement issues, 2) Technical support, 3) Training and staff development. The committee is working in sub-groups on these three issues. Also completed is the installation of a decision support system which is now in place and operational. This system addresses the issue of gathering, storing, and analyzing student data bases.02/28/97 16:27 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMVNICATI ODM @001/003 LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT HIO WEST MARKHAM SI REE'l' LII TLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501)324-2032 DATE 57 TO Central Arkansas Media FROM Suellen Vann SENDERS PHONE# 324-2020 SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial * 01 rOR COMMUNICATIONS OTl'ICE USE ONl.Y' Transmitted By Date Time02/28/97 16:28 501 324 2023 I.RSD COMMUNI CAT I ODM 002 003 J Little Rock School District Community Leaders, School Supporters Coming Together for Little Rocks Public Schools at Assembly for Success /^SEMBLY FOR February 28,1997 For Immediate Release Coiwfcw Tcaate for Iide ftiHc Sdnots For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Joy Wier, 374-4871 Gail Nickerson, 370-9300 Over one thousand supporters of the Little Rock School District are being invited to gather on Monday, March 10,1997, to demonstrate support for efforts toward reshaping the districts future. The Assembly for Success, scheduled for 4:30 p.m. in the Clinton Grand Ballroom of Arkansas Excelsior Hotei, will be a spirited rally by community and business leaders, parents, school staff, students and representatives of the work groups named at last nights school board meeting. 'The formation of work groups which will define the future of the Little Rock School District is a landmark occasion toward improving our schools, said Superintendent Don R. Roberts. This coming together of our community for a rally is (more) AAOJUaaMtailiii 02/28/97 16:29 QaOl 324 2023 LRSD COMMLMCATI ODM @003 003 LRSD Rally Page 2 of2 a Step toward a new optimism for the future of our public schools. The court-approved moratorium allows us a window of opportunity which has not existed previously to initiate significant educational changes. JJ The Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools have partnered with the district to plan the Assembly for Success. 33 Entergy, which has always played a major role in supporting public education in Arkansas, is the events major corporate sponsor. Doug Buford, chairman of the board of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, said, This assembly on March 10 will demonstrate the optimism of the business community that the Little Rock public schools, under Dr. Roberts leadership. are on the threshold of making significant improvements. A lot of us have talked about what we can do, and now Dr. Roberts is giving us those opportunities to get involved. AU of us in the community are encouraged by recent events which impact the Little Rock School District, said Baker Kurrus, president of the Little Rock Alliance For Our PubUc Schools. This new sense of enthusiasm will drive the endeavors of the newly formed work groups which we believe will result in great strides for the district. The Assembly for Success will culminate with a roll call of community groups and educational organizations which are supportive of the Little Rock School District. Representatives of local organizations that have an interest in the future success of the district wiU be invited to the rally. II /I ff03/06/97 13:33 501 324 2023 LRSD COM'IVNICATI ODM @002. 003 Little Rock School District MEDIA ALERT March 6,1997 For Immediate Release For more information: Snellen Vann, 324-2020 Joy Wier, 374-4871 Gail Nickerson, 370-9300 WHAT: ASSEMBLY FOR SUCCESS Coming Together for Little Roch's Public Schools A national convention-style rally of support for Little Rocks public schools. This is a wonderful opportunity for a very visual Live at Five or Six broadcast with about 1,000 attendees. WHEN: Monday, March 10,1997 Reception, 4:30 p.m. Program, 5:00 p.m. WHERE: Clinton Grand Ballroom Arkansas Excelsior Hotel WHO: One thousand representatives of community organizations, businesses, parent groups and schools will gather to express their support of the public schools in Little Rock. The event is open to the public.Stand Up And Be Counted Monday Afterfioon! > o You are personally invited to attend the Assembly For Success, a major rally in support of Little Rocks public schools. Our community is coming together to pledge their support for our schools on Monday, March 10, in the Clinton Grand Ballroom of Arkansas Excelsior Hotel. The Assembly For Success begins at 4:30 p.m. with a reception, followed promptly at 5:00 p.m. with a special program you wont want to miss! Enclosed is your special ticket/name tag. Print your name in the space provided and wear it Monday to be admitted to the Assembly. Please come and show your support for Little Rocks public schools. Your attendance is very important! If unable to attend, send someone to represent you! Organizations from throughout Central Arkansas will be saluted for their role in support of our public schools. This is your chance to stand up and be counted as a participant in the positive momentum building for Little Rocks public schools. o C5 o 73 tn y-it -I o FOROWnBUCSQUU unuRocx The Assembly For Success is a parmershil) project of the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. ASSEMBLY FOR SUCCESS The Assembly*s Major Corporate Sponsorship is provided by: Enlerfiv Coming Together for Little Rocks Public Schools MONDAY, MARCH 10 4:30 P.M. RECEPTION, 5:00 P.M. PROGRAM CLINTON BALLROOM. ARKANSAS EXCELSIOR HOTEL O o o o 6 To: From: Date: Re: Ann Polly 5-2-97 QV u/iV dUMu^i & Joshuas involvement during the plan development period In an order filed 4-29-97, the Judge stated that, during the plan development period, the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD were discussing and working together in preparing proposed plan modifications. Horace, Margie, Melissa, and Skip said that no Joshua representatives were on their working teams, although Margie stated that her discipline team plans to include Joshua later. Gene was out of the office and, since he is the only associate on the incentive school team, we do not know if Joshua is represented on the incentive school working team. Redflag: If John doesnt agree with the final modifications, he might appeal on the basis that he was not involved during the development stages. Also, it seems that from some language listed below, that ODM is to advi^ and consult with him during the development period. 'i For your review, I have both attached the following documents and restated, with emphasis, the relevant statements from: LRSDs 12-6-96 motion and brief Joshuas response Courts 12-27-96 order Courts 4-29-97 order In the 12-6-96 motion, LRSD stated: LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in order to develop and present to the court plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. ...in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD ODM could...support LRSDs efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD... ...prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan...In the brief that supports the 12-6-96 motion, LRSD restates: ODM could...support LRSDs efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan... In Joshuas response to the 12-6-96 motion, Joshua states: That office [0DM1 would consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan. The Joshua Intervenors will respond in a prompt and good faith manner to proposals to modify the agreements with regard to the LRSD. These intervenors may well suggest provisions to address problems in the areas mentioned in lead counsels letter to the court of December 5 (at 2-3). LRSD and Joshua representatives are in the process of discussing ways in which perceived problems of class members, in the area of discipline for example, can be address in a better fashion, but with lesser demand on the interim superintendents time. The objective of this effort is to allow the superintendent to focus on his ideas for plan modifications and systemic efforts to address some of the problems surfaced by these intervenors. The parties can present to the court any agreed upon changes in the plans, as well as periodic status reports on their progress. In Judge Wrights 12-27-96 order, she states: . ..the Court finds that the motion should be granted. By its motion, the LRSD seeks a six to nine month period during which it would concentrate its efforts on developing plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. ...the LRSD asks the Court to authorize the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODMT to act as a consultant and a participant in the development of a modified plan. ...the parties...will benefit from...the expertise of ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan. The Court will not prevent the ODM from advising the LRSD or other parties during negotiations for plan modifications. . . The ODM may participate in negotiations as a facilitator. In the order fded 4-29-97, the court states: [T]he LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The Court is mindful that the parties are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modifications to the settlement plans...i I 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Defendant. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenor. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenor. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, Intervenor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 filed EASTERN'D?s^ra?CT ARKANSAS APR 2 9 1997 JAMES By
w. McCormack, clerk < cumt ORDER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors on September 27, 1996, requesting attorneys fees for the work of their counsel in successfully opposing the motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to end federal court jurisdiction regarding the LRSD. In that motion filed on May 17, 1996, the LRSD argued that it had agreed to an implementation period of six years, that the six-year period had expired, and that it was in substantial compliance with the settlement plans. On September 23, 1996, the Court denied the LRSDs motion. The ' Joshua Intervenors then filed their motion for attorneys fees. The LRSD moved for reconsideration of the Courts September 23, 1996 Order denying its motion and also moved for an extension of time to respond to the Joshua Intervenors motion for attorneys fees. The LRSD asked that it not be required to respond to the motion for attorneys fees until after the Court ruled on its motion for reconsideration. The LRSD additionally stated that it should it not receive relief from this Court on its motion for reconsideration, it intended to appeal to the Eighth Circuit and requested that any response to the Joshua Intervenors motion for fees be delayed until the issue was resolved, if necessary, by the appeals court. The Joshua Intervenors responded in opposition, arguing that the LRSDs requested extension was too long and that the LRSD should not be allowed to wait until after a ruling by the Eighth Circuit before responding to the attorneys fee motion. Subsequently, the LRSD filed a motion on December 6, 1996, asking the Court to approve a plan development period, during which time the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD could work together in preparing proposed plan modifications. The LRSD also filed a motion to . .J ----- withdraw its motion for reconsideration ofthe Courts Order regarding federal court jurisdiction. On December 27, 1996, the Court granted the motion for a plan development period and also granted the LRSDs motion to withdraw. The Court has determined that in the interest of judicial efficiency and fairness the Joshua Intervenors motion for attorneys fees should be resolved. The Court is mindful that the parties are engaged in a period of discussion regarding proposed modification^ the settlement plans and the Court does not wish to place the parites in an adversarial position. However, the Court 2finds that it is in the interest of justice to address the motion for attorneys fees. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for extension of time (doc. 2837) and directs the LRSD to respond to the motion for attorneys fees within ten days from the date of entry of this Order. SO ORDERED this day of April 1997. JNIIED STATES DISTRICT jfiDGE UNITED GE ON IN 'The resolution of the issue of attorneys fees will not defeat the LRSDs right to refile its" motion for reconsideration as set forth in the Courts Order of December 27, 1996. 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LRC82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEC 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL Ofiics of DeseSfSgsSon ^'oniisfint^NTERVEuoRS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT PERIOD The Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Motion states: 1. This court has repeatedly expressed the view that LRSD could benefit from modification to its desegregation plan and has provided expeirt testimony in order to guide LRSD in the development of plan modifications. The court has noted, however, that any proposed modifications must be developed by the parties and not the court. 2. LRSD can improve its educational progreim for all students and can enhance the prospects for the long term desegregation of the district if given the opportunity to devote the necessary time and resources to the task. LRSD is prepared to work cooperatively with the other parties and with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM") in order to develop and present to the courtplan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district. 3. The Knight Intervenors support the effort to develop a modified plan for education and desegregation within LRSD. They are willing to work cooperatively with the other parties to develop such a plan. 4. PCSSD and NLRSD do not intend to become directly involved in the process of developing a modified education and desegregation plan for LRSD, except to the extent that the development of such a plan might impact interdistrict desegregation issues, but they support the effort described in this Motion. 5. LRSD expects that they can work cooperatively^ with all parties to present to the court within the next six to nine months a plan for improving education and desegregation in LRSD. This plan will necessarily modify or replace certain components of the present LRSD Desegregation Plan. 6. LRSD eind Joshua have met with the desegregation monitor to discuss ways in which LRSD, Joshua and ODM can work together toward improving education and desegregation in LRSD. ODM monitoring reports have shown the need for changes in LRSD's approach to desegregation. ODM could, with this court's approval. support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plaui for education and desegregation in LRSD
by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development, staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline 2issues
and by withholding any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this court authorize ODM to consult with the parties and participate in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD
to redeploy monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as budget development. staff development, student assignment and resolution of discipline issues
and, to withhold any further monitoring of the current LRSD plan (other than the completion of monitoring reports presently in process) for a six to nine month period during which a modified education and desegregation plan will be developed. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: Christopher Helli (/81083)^ John C. Fendley, Jr.' (#92182) 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop^^
mail on this ly depositing a copy of same in the United States day of , 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- West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markhcim Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Helle
John C. Fendley, Jr. 4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-S'66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL CtC G DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL J996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Ofrice of Dese^rocsiicn Woni'Cfirxj INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN D' LOPMENT PERIOD The Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jaril, 502 U.S. 367, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), outlined the standard for modification of a consent decree: [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. If the the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. The Eighth Circuit applied the Rufo standard in affirming this Court's decision granting LRSD's request to close Ish incentive school and to assign the former Ish attendance zone students to the new King interdistrict school. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). The Eighth Circuit stated, "We are convinced that the closing of Ish advances [the goal of desegregation] by offering a desegregated setting for students within the Ish attendance zone alongside children from thePCSSD." Id? Therefore, the Eighth Circuit has approved modifications of the LRSD Desegregation Plan where the modifications further the goal of desegregation. Moreover, the LRSD Desegregation Plan was drafted with the expectation that modifications would be made as necessary to further the purposes of the plan. A six to nine month pleui development period for the purpose of developing plan modifications would further the goal of desegregating LRSD. Improving education in LRSD is essential to maintaining current levels of desegregation and improving desegregation in the future. Modifications are also needed in other areas including budget development. staff development. student assignment and resolution of discipline issues. ODM could, with this court's approval, support LRSD's efforts by consulting with the parties and participating in the development of a modified plan for education and desegregation in LRSD
by redeploying monitors to provide assistance to LRSD in areas such as The Eighth Circuit's reasoning is consistent with the rule of equity which allows a court to modify an equitable decree to further the purpose of the decree. See, e.g., Larken Minnesota, Inc. V. Wray. 881 F.Supp. 1413, 1419 (D.Minn. 1995). It is also consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions which have identified modification. myriad of changed circumstances which justify County School See. Board. e.g., 978 Jacksonville Branch, F.2d 1574, 1582 NAACP V. Duval (11th Cir. 1992) ("Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitadaly tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met. (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered."). a ^^hniTW^ftwrihT*liTil*hTi piw ijrr 2budget development, staff development, student assignment and resol
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.