I a Synopsis of Circuit and District Court orders and ODM communication regarding the LRSD budget: Circuit Court Order of December 12, 1990: 1. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. 2. The Court is to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the settlement plans and agreement. Letter from the Monitor to LRSD, October 28, 1991: The LRSD must be able to provide the Court with information that: 1. Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
2. Demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
3. Describes a desegregation budget process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
4. Enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. District Court Order of January 21, 1992: 1. The Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect district intentions, goals, and priorities regarding desegregation efforts. 2. The Court determined that the LRSD budgetary process does not meet the requisites stated in the Monitors letter and directed the district to submit a revised budget. 3. The budget must be directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 4. The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on a per annum basis that covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. 5. The LRSD must submit a long-range revenue projection, covering the same period of time, that includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and the settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources.( 6. The long-range revenue projection will provide a clear picture of the districts financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. 7. The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are "start up" and when these start up costs will terminate. District Court Order of February 23, 1993: 1. The Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. 2. The superintendent submitted a budget document wherein he stated he would: a. b. c. d. e. Immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process
Direct the new administration team to conduct a desegregation plan audit
Restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement
Strive to place the entire district in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement
Link programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement to expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, the superintendent will recommend nonrenewal of personnel contracts in these areas. 3. The Court stated that findings in e LRSDs 1990 Curriculum Audit continue to exist in the district a. b. c. d. School management practices show inadequate control of district resources. The district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel. The budget is not viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities are not apparent. 4. 5. The superintendent stated in a February 1, 1993 hearing that it would be one-and-one-half years before the LRSD would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Courts previous orders. The LRSD must achieve a budget process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the districts careful planning for meeting itsdesegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. 6. 7. 8. The Court is concerned with not only the expenditure of desegregation settlement money but also all the state, local, and federal funds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The Court finds it necessary to assist the LRSD by appointing a person or persons to work with the LRSD to prepare a budget document that will make it possible for the Court to monitor the districts many desegregation commitments. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates it understands that budgeting procedures, and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the districts on-going planning and evaluation processes.Numerous Court orders and records address the characteristics of the budgetary process and budget document that will enable the Court to effectively monitor how the LRSD is planning and applying use of its resources toward fulfilling its desegregation commitments. Based on ODMs monitoring needs and on Court records that include the Monitors letter of Oct. 28, 1991, Circuit Court orders of December 12, 1990, District Court Orders of January 21, 1992 and February 23, 1993, and LRSD submissions of July 31, 1992 to the District Court, the LRSDs budget processes and resulting documents must reflect the following elements, clearly and closely linked together: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The districts legal obligations (plan provisions and court orders,) based upon a current desegregation plan audit that will enable the district to clearly identify its desegregation goals and subordinate objectives. Quly 31, 1992 LRSD submission) Needs assessment and planning, both short-term and long-term, to meet court order and desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities, that also reflects a process which includes Board involvement in long-range planning and budgeting. Quly 31, 1992 LRSD Budget submission and Feb. 23, 1993 Order) Prioritization based on (1) importance or "weight" factors in relation to desegregation goals, plan provisions, and Court orders, (2) sequence of events (what must be done first so other things can be done second, and so on,) and (3) programs or activities that will require larger portions of resources, or a longer commitment of resources, in order to be fulfilled. (Jan. 21, 1992 and Feb. 23, 1993 Orders) Identification of all financial resources (including settlement funds and federal, state, local, and any other revenues) and anticipation of when millage increases will be sought. Qan. 21, 1992 and Feb. 23, 1993 Orders) An accurate and comprehensive accounting for the allocation and expenditure of all financial resources (including settlement funds and federal, state, local, and any other revenues.) (Feb. 23, 1993 Order) A monitoring system that includes a regular review of whether expenditures are being made at the rate and amount proportionate to allocations, goals, objectives, priorities, timelines, and formative and summative evaluation feedback. (Circuit Court Order, Dec. 12, 1990
District Court Orders of Jan. 21, 1992 and Feb. 23, 1993) Evaluation criteria and methods, both formative and summative, upon which to determine whats working, where changes may be needed, where any money is being wasted, where economies can be effected, and the rate of progress toward desegregation goals. (Circuit Court, Dec. 12, 1990) Timelines, with specific starting and completion dates for all work, that include designation of who is responsible for each step described above. 0an. 21, 1992) aProject goal: To develop and implement budgeting processes, budget documents, and budget management procedures and practices that are institutionalized as an integral part of the districts ongoing planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes to ensure the district fulfills its desegregation goals, programs, and priorities over the full span of the settlement agreement. (Feb 23, 1993)OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 October 28, 1991 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: As you are aware, the District Court is obligated to monitor the use of settlement monies and does so through the Office of Desegregation Monitorin: ODM must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. For the past several weeks, my associate. Bob Morgan, has been working closely with your Manager of Support Services, Jim Ivey, and also with our financial consultants, the Arkansas Financial Group, to develop a system for adequately and fairly monitoring desegregation finances. During the course of this process it has become apparent that the settlement monies are being spent at a rate which will exhaust iem long before the plan commitments and their scheduled fulfillment have been realized. Budgeting and fiscal management to ensure full implementation of the desegregation plan needs to be such that the district can answer the following questions: 1. 2. J. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? What process is used to project the desegregation budget? How do these costs correspond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives?Page Two October 28, 1991 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the "regular" budget? 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? 8. "What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? 9. What are e districts spending priorities and how have they been determined? 10. "What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its full extent? Within the next ten days, Bob and I want to meet with you to discuss the answers to' these questions. We are aware of the enormity of the districts planning, budgeting, and accounting tasks
if we can be of any assistance as the above information is gathered, please dont hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours, W._____ Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc
Judge Susan Weber Wright /I 3 7 2 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0!:ic2 c! C i?5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On February 1, 1993, the Court held a hearing to determine, among other things, what progress the Little Rock School District ("LRSD) was making with, respect to conforming its budgetary process to that outlined in earlier orders of the Court. Having considered the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, the Court determines that the LRSD needs assistance in developing a budget that complies with the Court's requirements for a budgeting process and document that can be effectively monitored. The Court first notified the LRSD of its concern about the LRSD's budgetary process over a year ago. During hearings on the parties' proposed modifications to their settlement plans. the Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts' allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, progreims, and priorities. The Court specifically addressed its remarks to the LRSD, and followed up its comments ^0 bjwith an order filed on January 21, 1992, directing the LRSD to submit a revised 1991-92 budget, prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM"). The Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions so the Court could determine that the LRSD's budgetary process would meet the following requisites: 1) accurately reflect and comprehensively account for the expenditure of settlement funds
2) demonstrate requirements requirements
the and link the between fiscal the underwriting district's of legal those 3) describe a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and 4) enable the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. The LRSD filed its response to the Court's order on June 1, 1992, "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93-1996/97." version of this document was filed on July 31, 1992. A revised Among the changes and additions in the revision's section entitled "Desegregation Budgeting: Description - Future Year Procedures" were new statements that II (t]he Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process" and "[t]he Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a Desegregation Plan audit and related budget proposals." Additionally, in the budget document presented to the Court on July 31, 1992, which was the subject of an August 3, 1992 hearing. LRSD Superintendent Bernd, who had come on board July 1, stated: 1992, Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. We must begin to restructure the budgeting -2-process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to other issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done by concentrating our attention first on the core curricular areas. Next,/ programs which are designed to improve instruction and/ achievement in these areas will be linked to particular' expected outcomes and goals. If a program dees not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally, for the District to operate efficiently and effectively, it will be necessary to streamline the administration. Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-93, this cannot be fully accomplished this year. the other hand, the District has several cost centers On where investment in personnel might produce savings generate revenues for the District. or will be considered in the coming months. All of these items Document # 1649. In December 1990, the LRSD Board of Directors received a Curriculum Audit it had commissioned the National Curriculum Audit Center to conduct. This report is a part of the case record. In Finding 5.3, the report found that "school management practices show inadequate control of district resources." In Finding 5.1, the auditors stated: [T]he district may be not exercising H appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel." The auditors found that "the budget was not viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent . . tl Finding 5.4. The Court finds that this continues to be the case. -3-Despite the persistent urging of the Court, there is no indication that a budget process of the type sought by the Court is or will be forthcoming from the LRSD. During the February 1, 1993 hearing at which budget matters were discussed, the Court asked Superintendent Bernd when the district would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Court's previous Orders. Dr. Bernd replied that he believed the district was "at least a year and a half away." The Court has been patient. It encouraged the LRSD to work with the ODM on the district budget, but, despite ODM's diligent efforts to assist, the LRSD has not produced a budget process that enables the Court to meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance. The Court, thus, finds it is necessary to assist the LRSD by appointing a person or persons to work with the LRSD at LRSD expense to prepare a budget document that will make it possible for the Court to monitor the myriad of programs the LRSD agreed to conduct in its desegregation settlement plan. The Court is concerned not only with the LRSD's expenditure of desegregation money but also with all the state, local, and federal funds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The LRSD must achieve a budgeting process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. The person or persons employed will be paid by the LRSD but will report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The LRSD is -4-expected to treat the employee or employees like its other fulltime employees for purposes of benefits and will provide adequate work space, equipment, and materials along with full access to information and support. The Court, after consultation with the person or persons and the LRSD, will determine appropriate salaries. The employment will not be permanent but will continue for as long as it takes to get the job done, as deteirmined by the Court. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates that it understands that budgeting procedures. and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the district's on-going planning and evaluation processes. DATED this cd day of February, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ChJ lOMPtlANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79^RCP jN by-----------d-------------- -5-aiv FILED ,,V-SPISTHICTCOUBT niSraCT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 1 51993 C2?.ci
, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court hereby notifies the parties that hearings will be held on Wednesday, July 7, 1993 and Thursday, July 8, 1993 to review budget matters involving the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The following week is open for continuation of the hearings. The Court will begin the hearings with a discussion of the PCSSD's approval of a 1992-93 contract agreement with its employee union, PACT. The Court wants to know how the PCSSD will be able to fund that retroactive salary agreement and continue to meet its desegregation obligations under the settlement plan. The Court will also address the LRSD's 1993-94 budget, including the planning process the district used to develop that budget. Prior to the hearing, both the PCSSD and LRSD must submit the inforaation specified below to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the other parties by the dates listed. The Court is requiring this detailed information because the school districts' ability to fund and carry out theirdesegregation plan commitments is requisite to fulfilling the legal obligations they agreed to in their settlement plans. In particular, the Court has expressed longstanding concern that it cannot meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance until the LRSD implements a budgeting process that will yield a budget reflecting the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation plan provisions over the full span of the settlement agreement. Therefore, the PCSSD and LRSD will submit: By June 28, 1993: 1. Documentation of the following budget-related changes that includes a complete rationale for these changes (a "business case") and the dollar amount represented by each change: A. All changes in the nature of additions, deletions. or B. reinstatements
Deficit reduction actions, such as changes in insurance funding, food service contracting, loans, etc. C. All certified teacher salary increases. These increases must be charted in the following manner (which is illustrated and explained in the accompanying chart): (1) Starting with the base salary for an employee category, create a table in increments of $5,000. Within each incremental group, show (2) the number of employee positions
(3) the average salary, based on that group's total number of employees and their salaries
(4) the average step increase
(5) the average of any additional salary increase (percentage raise) -2- above the step increase
(6) the new average salary for the increment that results from the step increase and percentage raise
(7) the revised total increase for the increment group
(3) the impact of these salary increases on the budget
(9) total cost to the district of teacher salaries
(10) the average teacher salary in 1993-94. D. (LRSD only) following: A summary spreadsheet reflecting the the initial 1993-94 tentative budget dated April 26, 1993
separate line items reflecting each addition, deletion. reinstatement, reduction. or any other action impacting the base budget
and a total to be consistent with the updated 1993-94 tentative budget. E. (LRSD only) A written action plan for how the district will deliver all requirements of item 4 detailed below. By June 30, 1993: 2. An updated 1993-94 tentative budget document from both PCSSD and LRSD. The LRSD budget must include: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that includes any changes from the 1992-93 budget as to additions, deletions, and reinstatements
B. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses. the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses. and the 1993-94 budget
-3-c. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 3. A budget summary from both PCSSD and LRSD projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years. The summary must reflect annual incoming settlement monies (and for the LRSD, any settlement loan funds the district anticipates drawing), The summary must also include anticipated yearly M- to-M revenues. By July 30/ 1993
4 . (LRSD only) A written plan for the long-range planning and budget process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget that includes at least the following: A. Details of the planning and budgeting organization, including identification of the lead planning person and his/her responsibilities and authority, and how implementation of this process will be coordinated and controlled. These details should clearly describe the roles in the planning and budgeting process of the school board, the superintendent, the superintendent's cabinet, and any other key participants. B. A description of the needs assessment strategy that addresses sources identify needs, of input and techniques used to along with the roles of the key C. , anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. A description of the process for determining district planning and budgeting goals, including how those goals -4-will influence programs and budgets, the major planning standards and criteria used by the district, and the strategy for integrating the requirements of the desegregation plan into the goals. The description should include the roles of key participants. anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. D. A description of how programs will be identified and matched to priority needs, how programming will be developed to meet unaddressed needs, and how the requirements of the desegregation plan will be addressed. This description should include the roles of key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. E. A description of the process for linking programs and budgets, for determining program budget priorities, for ensuring that desegregation plan responsibilities are funded, and for the actual decision-making in allocating funds. This description should include the roles of the key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. F. A description of: how the planning and budgeting document will be structured and monitored
what the document will look like (format)
the type and frequency of monitoring
the type and frequency of reporting
and how program performance will be matched with budget expenditures. This entire description should include the roles of the key participants, anticipated outcomes. and timeframes. -5-G. A description of the program evaluation strategy, including how evaluation criteria will be established, how corrective action will be initiated, and how pT-ngTam evaluation will impact the next program and budget cycle. This description should include the roles of the key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timp-F-ramaa- H. A description of what strategy the district will use to specifically address the continuing shortfall of funding, and how this strategy will be incorporated into the ongoing long-range planning and budgeting process. This description should include the roles of the key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. SO ORDERED this day of June, 1993. united StAtES DISTRICT JT JUDGE BY 1 -6-LRSD 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Base Salary Number ot Certlfled Positions Actual Average Salary Actual Average Stag Incraaca Actual AMeraga Salary Raise Average Total Increete (D+E) Ravaed Araraga Salary (C-t-F) Impact on BudQSt (Brfl Total Coot to Dktilct (BxG) 16,000-21,000 21,001-26,000 26,001-31,000 31,001-36,000 36,001-11,000 41,001-56,000 56,001-61,000 61,001-76,000 76,001-81,000 81,001-86,000 TOTAL (J) 1993-94 Average Salary (A) The base salary will be used only for identifying employees within a certain salary range. (B) The number of positions column identifies the number of positions within that base salary range. (C) The actual average salary is an average salary for all the positions identified in column (B). (D) Actual average step increase is the averaged dollar amount received per position identified in column (B). (E) Actual average salary raise is the averaged dollar amount received for the across the board" percentage raise per position identified in column (B), (F) Average total increase is the step increase plus the salary raise. This is the amount the district will pay "over and above" last year. (G) Revised (or adjusted) average salary is the average salary identified in column (C) plus the step increase, plus the salary raise. (H) The impact on the budget is the number of positions identified in column (B) times the average total increase, column (F). This is the additional amount the district will be paying during 1993-94 over what they paid in 1992-93 for the positions identified in column (B), (I) Total cost to district is the amount the district will pay for salaries of those positions identified in column (B) during 1993-94. (J) 1993-94 average salary is determined by dividing the total cost to district, column (I), by the number of positions, column (B).1 5"^ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CY____ LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following budget documents required by the Court's June 15, 1993 Order: 1. An updated 1993-94 tentative LRSD budget document which includes: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that incudes any changes from the 1992-93 budget as to additions. deletions, and m I' J I ! o reinstatements
B. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses. the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses. and the 1993-94 budget
C. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 2 . A LRSD budget summary projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years which reflects annual incoming settlement monies (and any settlement loan funds the district anticipates drawing). The summary must also include anticipated yearly M-to-M revenues. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ^hristopherHeSer^ Bar No. 8108 3 ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of June, 1993: 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 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 xistopher Hell Ifc' (-jF AUG 21 >5 Oi!. t: ycnitofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION , LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER filed * 2 l3 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS I -e Cii On July 7-8, 1993 and again on August 12-13 , 1993 , the Court held hearings on the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") budget for the 1993-94 school year. This Court has previously expressed concern that it cannot meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance until the LRSD implements a budgeting process that will yield a budget which reflects the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement agreement. Having heard testimony over the course of the two hearings, the Court commends the LRSD for initiating, with the help of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, budgeting and long- range planning processes. The Court acquiesces in the implementation of the budget for the following two reasons: (1) the LRSD budget for the technically balanced, and 1993-94 school year is I -.3 *-' (2) the LRSD considered its desegregation obligations in the budget, although there remain certain areas of concern. The Court continues to be concerned with the tremendously large budget deficits the LRSD projects for future years These deficitst are brought about partly by recurring expenditures that are funded through non-recurring revenue sources, a practice that threatens to jeopardize the district's ability to fund its desegregation obligations in the future. The Court also notes that, although the LRSD succeeded in creating a balanced budget, the district was able to do so by using extraordinary one-time budget balancing strategies that do not represent lasting budget reductions. One example of such budgetary practices is the way in which the district drained its Risk Management Loss Program to create additional revenue for the 1993-94 fiscal year. This fund, which the LRSD established to pay deductibles associated with losses not covered by insurance premiums, had accumulated a reserve. The LRSD transferred $500,000 from this reserve into the revenue side of the budget to shore up the sagging bottom line. However, the district will not be able to implement this strategy on an annual basis. See Exhibit 1-B, June 28, 1993 Submission. Although the district has termed such maneuvers "Major Deficit Reduction Actions, II most are actually one-time budget reduction tactics that do little or nothing to remedy the predicted out-year shortfalls. This type of financial manipulation only allows the district to delay making the difficult budget decisions that will alleviate the projected deficits. The Court is also particularly concerned about the following budget items that represent reductions in previous program or department funding levels and thereby create the potential for negatively affecting the desegregation plan: (1) Office of Communications: The Interdistrict plan states 2that fl [d]esegregation will succeed only so far as the conununity supports and participates in it, and [a] community well-informed about its schools, and their desegregation, is more willing to place confidence in them and to participate in various aspects of desegregation-related initiatives and activities. In this respect, the Interdistrict Plan calls for the district to seek ways to fund additional staff who are responsible for public relations programs. Yet the district now recommends cutting the Communications Assistant to part-time with a salary of $10,000 and no travel or benefits package. The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the district's ability to meet its plan obligations.* (2) McClellan Community School Program: In a June 28, 1993 submission. Exhibit 1-A includes the Community School among a listing headed "Reinstatement of Programs" that allots $100,000 to the program. In the July 8, 1993 submission, the business case for the McClellan program reiterates that "the cost for restoring and expanding some community programs is $100,000. In the revised August 2, 1993 submission, an almost identical business case on the McClellan Community School Program appears again, but this time without explanation for the change "the cost for restoring and expanding some community programs has been revised and is projected to be $55,000. The Court has previously reminded the district that The Interdistrict Plan provides that the districts will "[cjontinue to embrace public relations as basic to successful desegregation. They will allot sufficient financial and human resources to effectively support the communication and involvement activities, training, and specialized programs or approaches to public relations which are required." -3-it It must be mindful of the language in its desegregation plan which states that a McClellan Community School Planning Committee (now called the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council) is a means for promoting community involvement and input so that whatever changes are proposed for the school will reflect the community's needs and wishes." See Order of December 30, 1992. The primary goal the McClellan Community School is to aid desegregation by bringing parents, local business people, and other citizens into the school as active program planners, guiders, and sustainers as well as participants in the community school classes. Yet the district proposes a funding alteration for the community program that causes the Court to question the effect this change will have on the district's ability to desegregate McClellan and meet its plan obligations. (3) Parent recruitment: In its July 8, 1993 submission, the LRSD allocated $74,000 for recruitment activities, but whittled that amount down to $34,000 in its August 2, 1993 submission. in business case entitled fl LRSD Office of Desegregation - Recruitment". The business case in the latter submission cites that the funds a allocated for recruitment activities in the two previous budget years went largely unspent, as though that fact were justification for the assertion that follows immediately in the next paragraph: "The LRSD can implement the recruitment activities in the Desegregation and Interdistrict Plans in a more effective manner than in the past and absorb a reduction in the budget. tl The desegregation agreements require the parties to engage in early. rigorous. and sustained -4-recruitment, yet the record in this case reflects the paucity of LRSD recruiting efforts (particularly for the incentive schools) and disappointing recruitment results. Even so, the August business case goes on to recommend that $40,000 less be appropriated for recruitment than had been proposed one short month before. The business case offers no explanation for how the district arrived at $34,000 as an amount adequate to meet the tremendous recruitment challenges it is required to undertake. Nor is the Court able to identify within the budget documents where the district has made any other appropriations specifically to underwrite recruitment. The Court expects the district to live up to its business case promise that 11 should any major concerns be detected, the level of funding for recruitment will be increased to a level that ensures on-going. successful recruitment activities." (4) The VIPS (Volunteers in Public Schools) and Partners in Education programs: These programs involve a multitude of parent and community activities that are specifically identified in the desegregation plans. Yet these programs are incurring severe cuts. including the only staff position specifically allotted to Partners. The shortened contracts of VIPS staff may leave them without adequate preparation time before teachers report back to their schools. The Court reminds the LRSD that the Court of Appeals considers appropriate involvement of parents to be a crucial element of the plan from which no retreat should be approved. See Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). Should the district's actions in this regard ultimately prove unsuccessful, the -5-/ r Court will revisit the issue. There are other areas of the budget which concern the Court. Nevertheless, while the Court does not affirmatively approve this budget which appears destined to create future problems, the Court will not block its implementation. The LRSD has made choices in its budget which the Court will permit at this time. In order to monitor closely the ongoing budgeting and planning processes and their impact on desegregation, the Court hereby orders the LRSD to submit to the Court, not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last work day of each month, the most recent copy of any project management tool the district is using to guide, monitor, and control the development and implementation of its program planning and budgeting processes. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of August 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AMD,'OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY Ji*It -6-u : .n: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION I CEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No- LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER A hearing held on August 12, 1994 culminated a series of Court dates, which had begun in February 1994, to consider the 1994-95 Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget. In an August 22, 1994 Order, the Court stopped short of affirmatively approving the 1994-95 LRSD budget, but did not block its implementation- The Court now- addresses in more detail the deficiencies in the LRSD budgeting processes. The LRSD made some improvements in its final budget document over the course of the budget hearings. The district succeeded in producing a final document that is much more readable and concise than previous versions. In the final budget, items are easier to find, understand, and correlate. Also, during 1993-94, as it planned OCT 2 4 iw for the coming fiscal year, the LRSD worked through the steps of the planning and budgeting process which it had developed in conjunction with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist. In generating the 1994- 95 budget, the district addressed all of the components of thatprocess to some degree. However, the LRSD did not always follow its plan and needs to improve timeliness, and overall quality of its work. accuracy, comprehensiveness. I. Projected Budget Deficits The Court continues to be particularly concerned about the increasingly large and ominous budget deficits that the LRSD projects for future years. These shortfalls are due in part to recurring expenses being funded through non-recurring revenue sources, as well as to the apparent trend of overall expenditures growing faster than revenues. As with the FY 1993-94 budget, the LRSD created a balanced 1994-95 budget by using extraordinary one-time budget-balancing strategies that do not represent lasting fiscal reductions
for excimple. saving $908,776 through the Early Retirement Incentive Program
borrowing $1.6 million in settlement loans
using a $4.1 million carryover balance
a spending freeze in the amount of $400,000
a cut of $300,000 in the line item for substitutes (with no explanation of how that amount was determined or the potential impact of the cut). The specter of a financial crisis looms ever larger over the LRSD, threatening to jeopardize the district's ability to carry out its obligations to provide a high-quality, desegregated education in the years to come. Yet the district continues to procrastinate in facing the tough decisions that it must make in order to align its spending patterns with the hard realities of declining revenues. For example, positions in the administrative ranks continue to be added, schools are under-enrolled, and salary increases appear automatic. -2-II. The Program Planning and Budgeting Process The district has developed, with the assistance of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a program planning and budgeting process that can serve the LRSD well if the district exercises the required management discipline. The program planning and budgeting procedures are tools that must work for the LRSD. The process is not static, but ongoing and cyclical
it must be constantly managed and continuously improved so that it meets the district's changing needs and resources. The Court has repeatedly stressed that the LRSD must delineate the links between budgeting, planning, and evaluation which will ensure that the district spends money wisely and meets its desegregation obligations. Yet the district made little effort during the 1993-94 fiscal year to complete meaningful program evaluations for budget decisions or modifications in programs or operations. At the end of the 1993-94 program development cycle. recommendations to modify or delete inefficient or ineffective programs were virtually non-existent. The district must improve the quality and timeliness of the products that should result from the planning and budgeting processes. Needs assessment, program evaluations, decisions to add. modify, or delete programs, and the budget itself all suffered from problems relating to timeliness and quality. Decision-making must be built on defined processes that are based on data and analysis and correlated into a management time-frame. Rather than using business cases as rationales to justify changes already made by -3-"administrative prerogative, II the district should use its business- case process as a decision-making tool to define problems, identify alternatives, anticipate consequences, and then confidently make well-reasoned choices. As examples of deficiencies that can be generally categorized as quality-related, the FTE's (Full Time Equivalence, which indicate specific numbers of employees) had been omitted from the budget (but were restored at the direction of the Court)
of 37 proposed business cases, 33 involved additions and modifications that added costs to the budget
the district had formulated no contingency plan in the event the transportation "outsourcing" option being investigated by the LRSD did not materialize (as it subsequently did not)
proposed school closings at Baseline and Stephens did not relate to a comprehensive long-term facilities plan
several of the business cases lacked substantive information and others contained information that was disjointed and fragmentary, incongruous, or 'inadequately explained and supported, thus leaving many questions unanswered. especially those having to do with the relationship between evaluation and planned changes.. Program decisions must be made within a time-frame which will allow orderly input into the budget process. Decisions delayed early in the cycle compress decision-making into slim time-frames, resulting in last minute decisions that leave little time for proper incoirporation into the budget document. Examples of tardiness include: the needs assessment was two months overdue and published so late that its usefulness was severely limited
decisions on -4-transportation outsourcing were two months late and delayed until the very last moment
program development decisions were still being considered five months after they were scheduled for completion
the district has yet to develop a plan for paying back the settlement loans
filings due on July 18, 1994 for hearings scheduled for July 28 and 29, 1994 were late, forcing a continuation until August 12, 1994. The district must work to institutionalize the planning and budgeting process throughout all levels of the organization. The process must become a well-understood, standard operating procedure that is well-accepted and consistently practiced as a way of life in the LRSD. The process can be institutionalized only if participants at all levels are actively involved in all aspects on a day-to-day basis. The district must ensure that those who are responsible for managing programs and budgets have a working knowledge of the process and are completely involved in it throughout the year. To this end, the Court requires the LRSD to work with ODM to: 1. Develop and conduct quality, continuous training on the program planning and budget process for all those who participate in that process. At a minimum, these training sessions should address the operational responsibilities of the participants in each of the components of the process (needs assessment, program inventory, goals and objectives. program development. budgeting. monitoring and reporting. and evaluation). The LRSD will work with ODM to ensure that the training is adequately defined and implemented. -5-2. Institute management processes which will actively review progress, in terms of achievements and expenditures. on a regular basis, involving every level of the organization down to at least every budget manager. The LRSD will work with ODM to ensure that the management processes are adequately defined and implemented. III. Business Cases The LRSD presented a number of business cases in conjunction with its 1994-95 budget. some of which the district subsequently withdrew or ultimately did not fund. Although the Court will not comment here on each one of the business cases. it specifically addresses below those for which the Court requires additional information or orders the district to take specific action. The parties are reminded that, until such time that the Court approves changes (whether proposed through business cases or other means) that constitute any alteration in desegregation plan commitments. the parties are obligated to abide by the desegregation plan and relevant court orders. a) Incentive School Spanish Program The district submitted several business cases regarding the Spanish language program in the incentive schools. The desegregation plan identifies foreign language as a featured subject area of emphasis in the incentive schools. The plan strongly recommends that Spanish be the studied language, and calls for a number of specific activities and supports, including language labs, a total physical response methodology, and provisions for practical experiences and -6-interactions with a native language user. In addressing earlier proposals from the LRSD to modify or eliminate certain incentive school features, such as language labs, the Court issued a May 1, 1992 Order noting that the parties had agreed to a wide array of activities, enhanced programs, and support mechanisms that would be available at the incentive schools. The Order admonished the LRSD that the "Eighth Circuit has emphasized the importance of the incentive schools and this Court will not allow the district to diminish the scope and quality of the schools' instructional programs and enrichment activities." A December 1993 report from ODM observed that the Spanish program in the incentive schools is "in a deplorable state. The district still has failed to implement the foreign language program described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan." (pg. 50) Subsequently, in submissions dated April 15, 1994, the LRSD filed individual business cases regarding Spanish instruction in each of the incentive schools. Most of the business cases requested either a half-time or full-time Spanish teacher. One proposed to pilot a Spanish immersion program at an unnamed incentive school. Later, in a July 18, 1994 submission, the district proposed a pilot program at one school that would cost $149,000. In this scenario. the remaining incentive schools would not offer Spanish during the regular instructional day. but would instead focus on infused cultural activities through the revised curriculum and thematic units. However, the district ultimately did not fund these business cases, but instead chose to allot new resources for foreign language -7-instruction at only one incentive school, Franklin, where the proposal was for a pilot Spanish immersion program in one first-grade class. Since the district has submitted and subsequently withdrawn or simply not funded so many proposals regarding Spanish instruction, it is unclear to the Court how the district plans to deliver a quality foreign language program as outlined in the desegregation plan. Therefore, the district must submit on or before Wednesday, November 16, 1994, a concise but complete description of the Spanish program as it is being offered at each of the incentive schools. The description is to include the extent to which the program is offered during the regular instructional day or extended day
the date the program began in each school during this academic year
the days and times Spanish is offered at each school
how instruction is being delivered
the number of FTE's teaching the subject in each school
whether each teacher is certified in Spanish
a description of each language lab and how it is being used to reinforce instruction
the grade levels at which Spanish is offered
the number of children enrolled in Spanish classes at each school by grade level
the specific learning objectives of the program, and how those objectives correlate to the program as it is being offered in each school (for example, as related to the methodology, instructional time, language lab practice periods, interaction with native speakers, etc.) b) Incentive School Theme Implementation On April 15, 1994, the LRSD submitted five separate business cases that requested funding to implement various "phases of themes -8-in each incentive school. However, the district ultimately funded none of these proposals in its final 1994-95 budget. The 1994-95 school year is well underway, and the Court fears that the district may not be providing students the full range of programs promised in the desegregation plan. Even though this Court's May 1, 1992 Order instructed the LRSD to fully implement themes in the incentive schools, the district has consistently dragged its feet. For example, the December 1993 ODM report on the incentive schools points out that "the earliest official starting date for a specialist was February 17, 1993 at Rockefeller. Program specialists at Franklin, Mitchell, and Rightsell started as late as April 12, 1993, almost one full year after the [May 1992] court order." The report goes on to state that the specialists had been working to integrate each theme into the school's curriculum. Now, over two years after the May 1992 Order and over one year since full-time specialists began' working. it appears that the schools are requesting funding for implementation. What has happened in the interim is unclear. So that the Court may determine the extent to which the district is currently complying with previous orders to fully implement themes, the district is to submit on or before Wednesday, November 16, 1994, description of theme implementation in each of the a incentive schools that includes at least the following information: 1) the a summary of the theme, how it is being integrated into curriculum and school activities, and the implementation timeline and 2) if theme implementation is contemplated in phases, the -9- rationale for such a method and plans for seeking Court approval for that approach 3) a summary of the special programs, activities, events, equipment, and materials which are devoted to theme support at each school 4) the extent to which the theme is fully implemented at each school and an explanation for any delays in implementation 5) what remains to be done to implement the theme fully 6) the amount of money spent on each school's theme implementation during FY 1992-93 and FY 1993-94 and the amount budgeted for FY 1994-95, by line item category, if possible (e.g., personnel, equipment, etc.) c) Staff Attorney In a June 1994 business case, the district proposed to add a full-time staff attorney position to the LRSD administration. The proposal states that the costs of adding this position would be offset by the savings in outside legal fees. Despite this assertion. the business case includes no dollar amounts for savings
it only covers the costs of the new position and additional clerical support, a figure of some $94,000. Without a cost savings analysis, it is not possible for either the district or the Court to determine what the real savings may be. The budget figures for 1994-95 reflect no savings in the line item for legal expenses over the previous budget. The Court advises the LRSD to determine what portion of outside legal fees a staff attorney can realistically save the district before it moves to add another position to an already swollen administrative body. -10-d) Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation The district has proposed to change the Desegregation Facilitator's title and duties to encompass direct responsibility for all aspects of the Student Assignment Office, coordination of citizen monitoring groups, and other duties. During the hearings, the attorney for Joshua expressed objections to the change, maintaining that the LRSD had afforded him neither adequate notice nor involvement. He also cited the proposal as a modification of the desegregation plan, which requires adherence to a modification process that had not been followed in this instance. The Court concurred and also noted that, while the superintendent was free to organize his staff according to his professional judgment. any recasting of roles had to be consistent with the desegregation pleins or else approved through the requisite plan modification process. The Court cautioned that any staff reorganization or changes in job descriptions could not result in neglect of plan-mandated responsibilities. Furthermore, the Court raised the issue of accountability, because the business case does not make clear exactly who would perform the jobs formerly assigned to the Desegregation Facilitator. The Court has charged the Monitor with coordinating among the parties the plan modification process for this proposed change. She will work with the LRSD to identify any deficiencies in the business case and to address them in ways that preserve the intent of the desegregation plan when it provided that a Desegregation Facilitator would serve the staff and students of LRSD schools. -11-e) Great Expectations Program On August 8, 1994, the district filed a business case proposing to implement Great Expectations, a program concept and methodology developed by an educator in Chicago and implemented in that city and elsewhere. The case does not adequately reflect that the district used the business-case method as a planning tool to enable it to make a confident, fully informed decision in adopting Great Expectations. For example, the case does not reflect the extent to which the district researched other programs, the criteria the district used to choose this one, or what the district expects the program to achieve. The case does not state why Mitchell and Rightsell were selected as participating schools or how this program would mesh with the district's desegregation obligations. In depicting Great Expectations, the business case describes the types of learning activities that are already operationalor should bein the incentive schools according to the desegregation plan
'for example. cooperative learning. the new LRSD integrated curriculxim. the classics literature program, the Latin Enrichment Program, reading and oral expression across the curriculum, heterogeneous groups, Writing-to-Read, positive expectations, positive self-esteem, and the Effective Schools model. While the Court does not disapprove Great Expectations, it does not accept it as a replacement of the incentive school programs which are catalogued in the desegregation plan. Rather, the Court sees the program as complementary and hopes that the Great Expectations approach will be useful in coordinating and supporting delivery of -12-the many programs and activities that incentive school children should regularly be experiencing. The Court notes that the district has provided no information indicating that Great Expectations should in any way affect the funding level or double funding feature of the incentive schools. (f) Incentive School Double Funding An August 8, 1994 business case proposed to save over $312,000 in the incentive schools by reducing certain personnel and services. ODM monitoring reports on the incentive schools have documented that the LRSD is more than double funding the incentive schools. The amount of money spent per pupil in the schools is a function of personnel and program costs in relation to the number of students enrolled in a particular building. Incentive school overhead costs remain relatively fixed from year to year, so if enrollment drops. per-pupil costs rise. Incentive school expenses have been increasing beyond the double funding point primarily due to under-enrollment and to increased personnel costs, noticeably due to the total amount of stipends paid to staff for the extended day and week programs. The district must curtail expenses wherever possible and appropriate
but at the same time, the district also must provide adequate compensatory, remedial. and enriched education to its students. The challenge which the double funding business case attempts to address is aligning incentive school costs with the programs and services promised in the desegregation plan. The only alignment method the district has contemplated in this proposal is cutting funding in various line items
the case does not consider -13-savings by increasing the number of students in each school through diligent recruitment, by releasing reserved seating, or by returning to their attendance zone those children who attend schools located outside their home zone. (Since the August hearing, the district has sought and received approval to release seats previously reseirved for white children in the four-year-old and kindergarten programs.) While the Court does not block implementation of these cuts, this business case is a further example of an instance where the guality of the district's proposals need to be greatly improved, example, a key element absent in this proposal is evaluation. For The LRSD does not offer an evaluation base upon which to construct a solid case for changing elements of school programs or operations as they relate to funding. Decisions must not be solely money-driven
they must be based on monitoring, measurement, outcomes, evaluation, research, and reassessment as well as on economy. Otherwise, how can the district determine what needs to be changed and how to change it? The business case fails to draw clearly the connections between the decisions that drove specific cuts, which cuts relate to which program or activity, how the cuts will potentially affect programs, what proportion of a category (such as supplies) a specific line item cut represents, and how the LRSD will monitor and measure the effect of the changes. Furthermore, the case neglects to factor in the critical relationship between the number of students and per-pupil expenditure
nor does the proposal state the enrollment level upon which the cuts were based. (When Stephens Incentive School closed at the end of 1993-94, significant number of its students were a -14-assigned to Garland Incentive School. The business case does not state whether such enrollment shifts were considered.) The Court will be watching the effects which these cuts have on the incentive schools. g) Academic Progress Incentive Grants On July 18, 1994, the LRSD submitted a number of business cases which included one on Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG) . That business case is subtitled "Proposed Modification of the Court- approved Desegregation Plan." Yet the district has provided no information or evidence that indicates the degree to which the LRSD may have followed the required plan modification process. The proposal is essentially to combine the funding of APIG and focused activities, although the desegregation plan indicates that schools were to have the opportunity to carry on both focused activities and APIG from separate funding sources: "The elementary area schools (non-incentive and non-interdistrict) will receive an annual allocation for implementing the focused activities for the school year" (pg. 81). As for APIG, the plan refers to an annual process where area schools (both elementary and secondary) may develop proposals in order to receive funding. Subsequent court orders stressed that focused activities and APIG were to remain complementary of each other, and that one was not to supplant the other: "However, the Court recognizes the [Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program] as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of. the original focused activities feature of the plan. Focused activities will continue to be an option for area schools. -15-may center around a theme, and will operate according to the original plan which provides for community and parental involvement and an annual allocation of funds. tt (May 1, 1992, pp. 24-25, emphasis original). The record shows that more than 8 0% of LRSD students attend area schools. Focused activities and APIG were designed to ensure that the vast majority of the district's students would have access to school-based programs and services tailored to help them reach the desegregation goals for academic achievement. As a matter of fact. the business case on cutting incentive school funding states that the cuts will free up more money for the area schools, presumably to help meet the needs of those schools. The district has not persuaded the Court that the proposal as presented in the July 1994 business case will help promote desegregation goals, nor that it is in the best interests of the thousands of students who attend area schools. Therefore, the Court does not approve the proposal as submitted. If the district wishes to revisit this area, the Court advises it to consult with ODM and the parties to develop a proposal that will clearly support the desegregation plan goals and serve the needs of area school students. Any proposed modification of the desegregation plan must be done in accordance with the requisite procedures. h) Transportation The 1994-95 budget contained a $1.3 million appropriation for transportation, but that allotment was unaccompanied by a plan or business case indicating how the sum would be applied. Testimony at -16-the hearing was that $1 million would be used for buses and the remainder would be spent on other needs. The Court requires the district to file a plan or business case which explains how the district plans to spend the money on transportation. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of October 1994. 5 I , / 1 mJITED STATES DTSTRyCT JUDGE OOCUMEfiT EVTERSD OH ^mpuancewith docket SHEET W ON FRC? J -17-
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.