{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1729","title":"Court filings concerning motion to add and/or substitute class representatives, motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Management, and motion to compel PCSSD compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School discipline","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion to add and/or substitute class representatives, motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Management, and motion to compel PCSSD compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1729"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["78 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to add and/or substitute class representatives; District Court, notice of deposition; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to compel; District Court, motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Management; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine to prohibit testimony by the Office of Desegregation Management and the Joshua intervenors' motion to quash the deposition subpoenas; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion to disqualify; District Court, order; District Court, response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) motion to compel compliance; District Court, memorandum of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in opposition to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) motion to compel Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline); District Court, reply of Knight intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT's) motion to compel; District Court, brief in support of reply to response to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers' (PACT's) motion to compel compliance; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV O 9 2001 WESTERN DMSION ~,;:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866S~ED PULASKI COUNT SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEI  VS. DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. NO\\! 13 2001 Qtf.\\tl~ IBl:..l..-miiifi-ll1l11~11. MOTION TO ADD AND/OR SUBSTITUTE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES PL.AIN'HFlERK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned, for their Motion to Add and/or Substitute Class Representatives, who respectfully move the Court for leave to add additional class representatives. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court: 1. That the Little Rock School District, through its counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, have .ra ised the issue the identity of the Joshua class representatives; 2. Joshua herein addresses the inference of inadequacy of representation by the Plaintiff by submitting additional parents of school age children of A.fric,an American descent as class representatives; 3. Donna Stone and Dennis Stone are respectfully submitted as additional class representatives on behalf of their minor children: Denise, age 14; Dennis Jr., age 11 and Danielle, age 5; 4. Danielle Stone is enrolled in the kindergarten program at Franklin Elementary; Dennis Jr. is in the 5th grade at Franklin and Denise is in the 9th grade at Hall High School; 5. The Intervenor class members are adequate representatives of the class who understand the lawsuit herein and the obligations of class representation. They verify that they will represent the interests of the class as in the additional or substitute class representatives; 6. There is no prejudice to the Plaintiff by the addition or substitution of the proposed class representatives; and 7. The Joshua Intervenors have discussed this matter with Plaintiffs counsel and said counsel does not object to this addition. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court add Donna Stone and Dennis Stone as additional and/or substitute class representatives on behalf of the Joshua class. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR  72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) .  j J( 1 By  ~'lJv -'QVt(i/1-li_ J?hn W. Walker . VERIFICATION We, Donna Stone and Dennis Stone, are familiar with the Joshua litigation in this case and wish for the litigation to continue because, in our opinions, the Joshua interests have yet to be satisfied. The allegations above in the Motion to Add and/or Substitute Class Representatives are correct in our opinion. We have had the obligations of class representation explained to us by class counsel, John W. Walker, Esquire; understand those obligations; and we are prepared to further and fully represent the interests of not only our three children, but the interests of other children who are similarly situated and within the d finition oft class herein. DENNIS STONE, SR. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of record on this~day of ~001. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION RECEIVED NOV 13 2001 OfftCEOF IIIIIIEUl10N DIORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS.LORENEJOSlflJA,ETAL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2001, at the law offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, LLP, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, that the undersigned will take the depositions upon oral examination of Gene Jones, Ann Marshall and Margie Powell, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before a notary public or other officer duly authorized to administer oaths. You are notified to appear at such time and place and take part in the examination as you may be advised. F,\\IIOME\\BBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\dcsegregation\\DepoNotii:e2.wpd Respectfully submitted, John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TEL: (501) 376-2011 FAX: (501) 376-2147 Attorneys for Plaintiff By, ifal-- 4w.a4t 71 ohnC. Fendley, Jr. -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by facsimile and U.S. mail on this 9th day of November 2001 upon: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P.O.Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 F:IHOMEIBBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\deaegrcgation\\DepoNotice2.wpd -3- Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Atttorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dr. Ken James Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 AO 88 (Rev. 11191) Subpoena in a Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: MS. MARGIE POWELL Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM DATE AND TIME X YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date and time specified below to testify at the talcing of a deposition in the above case. PLACE OF DEPOSmON Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday,Novemberl4,2001 l :00 p.m. (until completed) [X] YOU ARE COMMANDnD to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): See the attached Exhibit \"A\". PLACE Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, .LLP 400 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday,November14,2001 1:00 p.m. (until completed) D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. A Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the talcing of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or wmanaging agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the erson will testi . Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 6 . ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANl) DATE ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark, LLP .f.00 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 ...,ittle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 (See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Paru C \u0026 D on Revme) AO 88 (Rev. 11/9 1) Subpoena in a Civil Case PROOF OF SERVICE DATE SERVED SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) DECLARATION OF SERVER PLACE MANNER OF SERVICE TITLE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct. AExecuted on _________ _ - DATE SIGNATURE OF SERVER ADDRESS OF SERVER Rule 45, Federal Rula of Civil Procedure, P1rta C \u0026 D: (c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS. - (1) A party or 10 attorney rt1pooslble (or the luu1oce and service of a subpoena sb1ll t1~ rt1pooslble steps to avoid Imposing undue burden or t1peme on a person ubJect to that subpoena. The court on btb1lf of which the subpoena was luued shall enforce this duty 10d Impose upon the party or attorney In breach of 1h11 duty an appropriate sanction, which may Include, but Is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee. (l)(A) A person commanded to produce and permit lmpectloo and copylo1 of de1l1nated boolul, papen, documents or taneJble tblop, or Inspection or premlst1 need not appear lo person 11 the place of production or Inspection uolts1 commanded to appear for depolilloo, beartn1 or trial. (8) Subject to para1npb (d)(l) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permlt Inspection and copyto1 may, within 14 days alter service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance II such time ls lt11 than 14 days alter service, serve upon the party or attorney designated In the subpoena written objection to Inspection or copytn1 of any or au of the deslpated materials or of tbe premilea. II objection Is made, the party servln1 the subpoena shall not be entitled to lmpect and copy the materials or Inspect the premlsea ucept punuant to ID order of the court by which the subpoena was luued. II objection bas betu made, tbe party servln1 the subpoena may, upon notice to the penoo commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any penon who ii not a party or an officer of a party from sl1n10caot e,cpeose resullln1 from the Inspection 10d copyln1 commanded. (3)(A) On timely motion, tbe court by which a subpoena was luued shall quash or modify the subpoena If It (I) falls to allow reasonable time (or compliance; (U) requires a person who Is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to I place more than 100 mllt1 from the place where that person resides, Is employed or reaul1rly transacts buslnt11 lo person, ucept that, subject to the provisions of clause (c)(3)(8)(111) of this rule, such a penon may In order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within tbe state In which the trial Is held, or (IU) requlrt1 disclosure of prlvile\u0026ed or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (8) II a subpoena (l) requires dilclosure of a trade secret or other confideodal resnrcb, development, or commercial Information, or (U) requires disclosure of an unretaioed expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from tbe expert's study made not at the request of any party, or (IU) requlrt1 a person who Is not I party or an officer of a party to incur substaotl1l upeose to travel more tban 100 mllt1 to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the 1ubpoen1, quaab or modify the subpoena or, II the party in whose behalf the subpoena Is luued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue bard1blp and a11ure1 that the penoo to whom the subpoena iJ addressed will be reasonably compeuated, the court may order appanoce or production only upon specified condldons. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA. (1) A person respoodio1 to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them II Ibey are ~I in the u111al coune of bu1lnt11 or shall oreaniu and label them to correspond with the cateaortes in the demand. (2) Whoo information subject to a subpoena Is withheld on a claim that Is prlvileeed or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made A expre11iy and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or tbinp not produced that Is sufficient to enable the demandin1 party to contest the .cblm.  Exhibit \"A\" Please produce the following: All documents pertaining to communications between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Judge Susan Webber Wright or her law clerks pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and/or LRSD's compliance therewith from January 21, 1998, to the present, not previously made available to the parties in this case. Incorporating the definitions set forth below, the documents to be produced include, but are not limited to, notes of any meetings between anyone from ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, briefing documents prepared by anyone from ODM for Judge Susan Webber Wright, calendar entries which reflect the dates and times of meetings between employees of ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright; any email communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright and any other documents in any form which reflect the substance of communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright which have not been previously made available to the parties in this case. Definitions \"Document\" shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or electronically recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records (stored electronically or otherwise), e-mails, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings and videotapes. \"Pertaining to\" shall mean constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified. \"Communication\" shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, U.S. mail, e-mail, personal delivery, or otherwise. \"Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" or \"ODM\" shall include all persons employed by or otherwise working on behalf of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. FILED ' U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV O 9 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLEHK PLAINTIFF ; t,~   ' fn - --;-;;-  'I .. ~'!'I\\ U'I ..,.,_.,., vs CASE NO. 4:82CV-fl!CEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. NOV 13 2001 OFFICE OF DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT DESEG~TION MONITORINBINTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE LRSD'S MOTION TO COMPEL INTER VENO RS On or about October 26, 2001 , District counsel, John Clay Fendley and John Christopher Heller, moved to compel the Joshua Intervenors to answer and otherwise respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents that it had served on Joshua on or about August 11 , 2001. The Joshua Intervenors responded to the LRSD's discovery requests on September 24, 2001. The responses, Joshua believes, were full and complete. The first set ofLRSD interrogatories was followed by a second set at which point Joshua requested and the Court granted a hearing upon Joshua's motion for relief On October 2, 2001 , the Court addressed both sets of interrogatories and made considl!rable reference to both sets either upon reference thereto by counsel for the respective parties or upon her own inquiry. At the_time of the proceeding, the Court did not have before her the extensiye responses made by Joshua to the first set ofLRSD interrogatorles. The ODM, 1 however, did have those responses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court quashed the LRSD interrogatories which had not been answered. Joshua submits that, at least by implication, the Court quashed any challenge to the first set of interrogatories as well because Little Ro~k argued during the hearing that many ofJoshua responses to the first set of interrogatories were unresponsive. Because the Court did not have all of the Joshua responses before her, and because the LRSD motion to compel did not attach the Joshua exhibits which accompanied Joshua' s first answers to discovery, the exhibits (See Attachment 1) are now being submitted to the court so that it can make its own determination of whether Joshua's responses were sufficient under the circumstances of the issue then before the Court, i.e. whether the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report submitted by LRSD justified and warranted a declaration of unitary status for the LRSD. Joshua notes that LRSD sought information that it already had which had been provided by Joshua such as the \"addresses\" for the monitors identified. See its Exhibit 3 to this motion. Counsel verbally informed Messrs. Fendley and Heller that counsel's business address was the address of the monitors. In the motion to compel, Messrs. Fendley and Heller note that the responses were unverified and had been noted in the September 27th letter to counsel. A review of the September 27th letter by counsel did not disclose a request for verification. Counsel notes though that pleadings signed by counsel have the same force as verified pleadings in that counsel is an officer of the court and is obliged to submit only truthful responses to court required mqumes. Finally, Joshua requests the court to review the transcript of the October 2, 2001 proceeding in the event that the Court is persuaded that the objections to Joshua's responses are 2 the Motion to. Compel be denied. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 BrW-~ CERTIFICATE OF SE~ I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been delivered to all counsel of record including the ODM on this '_!f:f5__day ofNovember, 2001 (JblM~ --------- ------ FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK HERSCHEL H. PRIOAY ( 1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE J). BELL, P.A.  A. BUTTRY, P.A. lCK S. URSERY, P.A. E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. J S C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOKN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIPP NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D, TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS. SHAPER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN lU, P.A. MICHAELS. MOOR..E, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H.ARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCK.ER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WILSON, P.A. HAND DELIVERED Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: ODM Depositions Dear Ann: \u003c, ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-895-21.7 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-7822Q18 November 9, 2001 JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JON ANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRANC. HICK.MAN, P.A. BETTY J, DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 , TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN RECEIVED NOV ./3 2001 OfRCEOF ~MOIIIORflli JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMJTH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP 8. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OP COUNSEL S.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. A.O. MCALLISTER CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1501 FAX 5012445344 htllerCfec.n,t Please find enclosed copies of our Motion in Limine and Brief, which were filed today, as well as Deposition Notices and Subpoenas for yourself and members of your staff. As you can see from our Motion in Limine, we believe that the people in your office should not be allowed to testify in this proceeding. The purpose of the depositions is not to learn what a particular witnesses' testimony might be in court, but only to determine whether the court has received extra-judicial infonnation on the merits of the case from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe we are required to investigate the possibility of extra-judicial communications on the merits of this case before the hearing continues on November 19, 2001. We therefore have little flexibility in the scheduling of the depositions but, if Tuesday or Thursday would be more convenient for you than Wednesday, we would be amenable to rescheduling for one of those days. Finally, please let me know whether you will accept service of the enclosed subpoenas or if it will be necessary for us to secure service in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I Ms. Ann Marshall November 9, 2001 Page2 CJH/bk Enclosures cc w/enc. via fax: Hon. Susan Webber Wright Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Mr. Mark Hagameier Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken James  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY BY OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED NOV t..3 2001 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Comes the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), by its undersigned attorneys, and for its motion in limine to prohibit testimony by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), states: 1. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors has given notice that three members of the ODM will be called as witnesses for the Intervenors at the hearing on unitary status. 2. The ODM was created as an arm of the court for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to that purpose, the ODM (i) operates under a budget approved by the court and subject to the court's broad discretion, (ii) has access to school district personnel and to information concerning the school districts, (iii) reports to the court and to the parties regarding progress with the requirements of the Districts' desegregation plans, (iv) serves a collaborative function in identifying and facilitating discussion among the parties with regard to desegregation remedies, and ( v) facilitates agreement between the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD with regard to compliance issues under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. It is contrary to the purpose and function of the ODM for its members to testify as witnesses on adversarial issues between the parties, particularly the issue of unitary status. Testimony by ODM members regarding the factual predicates for unitary status will be perceived as either hostile or favorable to particular parties. It will be the duty of counsel to cross-examine the ODM witnesses for bias or impeachment. In short, appearing as a witness on the issue of unitary status is contrary to the ODM's long-standing and historic function as an agent of the court and destructive of its collaborative and facilitating role with the parties. 4. If the members of the ODM are permitted to appear as witnesses on the issue of unitary status, then the LRSD has a due process right, supported by Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (\"FRE\"), to depose them with regard to their expected testimony and to cross-examine them at the hearing. The LRSD will be entitled to explore (i) whether the ODM witnesses have formed conclusions or opinions regarding the LRSD's request for unitary status, (ii) the basis for those conclusions or opinions, and (iii) the witnesses ' credibility. 5. The issue of credibility will place the parties in the untenable and unfair position of asking the court to disbelieve witnesses who (i) represent the remedial arm of the court itself, and (ii) have had more than a decade of experience in working with the court and the parties in the role of monitor and facilitator. The working relationship over that period of time includes numerous ex parte contacts between the ODM and the court. 6. The court stated at the hearing held on June 29, 2001 (i) that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors was free to call the members of the ODM as witnesses \"to the extent ... they have knowledge on the matters at issue,\" and (ii) that the court had spoken informally with an ODM staff member and that the court had no objection to such member sharing with the parties \"the information she has.\" (Transcript of 6/29/01 Hearing, 27-28) These statements by the court necessarily indicate a belief that the ODM has evidence which is relevant to the issue of unitary status and that is not 2 merely cumulative of evidence that may be presented independently by the parties. 7. The LRSD is aware of a recent statement by the Federal Monitor in a public forum to the effect that the LRSD \"is not ready for unitary status.\" This circumstance indicates that the Federal Monitor (i) has formed an opinion or conclusion that is not strictly within the ODM' s charge to act as a monitor for the court and a facilitator for the parties, and (ii) has aligned herself publicly and to a significant degree with the position of the Joshua Intervenors on the issue of unitary status. 8. Independently of the ODM witnesses' testimony on the merits, it is material to the LRSD's case whether the ODM and the court have had ex parte discussions on the issue ofunitary status or related issues. If such discussions have occurred, issues arise concerning (i) whether the court has acquired personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  455(b )(1 ), (ii) whether the impartiality of the court might reasonably be questioned, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  455(a), and (iii) whether the court has considered ex parte communications on the merits or on procedures affecting the merits, within the meaning of Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. 9. The LRSD reserves it right to investigate whether there have been ex parte communications between the ODM and the court on any and all matters affecting the LRSD's right to an impartial hearing on its request for unitary status, and if so, to seek an appropriate remedy. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the court prohibit testimony by members of the ODM at the hearing on the LRSD's request for unitary status, and for all other just and proper relief. 3 Respectfully submitted, Little Rock School District, Robert S. Shafer Christopher Heller and John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on November 9, 2001 : Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 4 Ms. Ann Marshall (Hand Delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsd\\descgmotion in limine.wpd 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY BY OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The ODM was created under the court's inherent equitable powers, at the direction of the Eighth Circuit, to replace the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). The purpose of the ODM is to function as an \"agent\" of the court for the ongoing \"supervision or monitoring\" of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1386, 1388. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has made clear that the ODM's monitoring of the parties' compliance with the settlement agreement is equivalent to monitoring by the court itself under its retained jurisdiction to oversee implementation of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1390; compare Jenkins v. State of Missouri, 890 F.2d 65, 67-68 (8th Cir. 1989) (noting that the creation of a desegregation monitoring committee at the remedial stage was within the court's inherent equitable powers). The only intimation of a testimonial role for the ODM in the opinions of the Eighth Circuit is with regard to its budgetary process. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit held that the parties were entitled to review the ODM's proposed budget and to submit recommendations and objections to the court. The Eighth Circuit noted that there might be \"rare occasions when issues are of such importance that an evidentiary hearing is required,\" id., but such a heari "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1727","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) motion to compel Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-10-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School discipline","School management and organization","School employees","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) motion to compel Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1727"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["32 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  / ~ :: ::~:.~\\; ~:::~:';, . SlJ~.~Y-i\\~4)i~ I , ~~ : .~~~ ~-  r FILED EA U.S. DISTRICT COURT STERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 ~ ZIJ1JI - U. S. DiSTR[CT JL'CCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS oc f 2 9 2001 WESTERN DIVISION _~;MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF DEP CLERK V. No. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHoorRECE~,.,eo DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OCT 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PULASKI ASSOCIATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS {PACTI AND PULASKI ASSOCIATION OF SUPPORT STAFF {PASS) MOTION TO COMPEL PCSSD COMPLIANCE WITH PLAN 2000, SECTION F (DISCIPLINE) The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and The Pulaski Association of Support Staff, by and through their Attorneys, Roachell Law Firm, for their Motion to Compel, state: 1. They are Intervenors herein and have standing to bring this motion. 2. In its Order dated February 22, 2000, the Court approved conditionally Plan 2000 submitted by PCSSD and stated: 11  this Court will judge Plan 2000 with the expectations that PCSSD will implement the plan without delay, conscientiously and in all good faith. Should PCS SD fall short of these expectations, the Court will not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction to compel compliance. 11 3. After repeated w~~s 1Jy PACT and PASS to the Board of Directors as well as to administrative officials, PCSSD has failed to comply with the Court's order and Section F of Plan 2000 as more fully set forth in the PACT and PASS Report and Attachments-PCSSD Desegregation Plan 2000-Section F (Discipline) attached hereto and - incorporated herein word for word as part of this motion. 5. The actions of the district in failing to comply with the Court approved plan 2000 continue from the date of the report to this date. 6. After hearing, the Court should order the district to forthwith comply with the Court's Orders with regard to Section F-Plan 2000 (Discipline) and consider such sanctions as may be appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff pray that the Court order PCS SD to comply with Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000 as ordered by the Court; and that they may be granted all other relief to which they may be entitled. 2 Respectfully submitted: Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 (501) 224-1110 ~.c-::;..__ Richard W. Roachell (78132) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed via U. S. Mail on this ____ day of October, 2001 to the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated. Mr. John Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, \u0026 Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaz.a 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Richard W. Roachell (78132) 3 Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and Pulaski Association of Support Staff Report \u0026 Attachments PCSSD Desegregation Plan 2000 - Section F (Discipline) July 2001 As Knight Intervenors, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) contend that the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) has failed to implement, in a timely manner, the terms outlined in Section F (Discipline) of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan 2000 and, in doing so, has delayed its obligation to bring parity and equity to the discipline administered to both black and white students in the District. This report and attachments are being submitted after efforts by PACT and PASS to make the PCS SD aware that the implementation of Section F (Discipline) has been unsuccessful. INTRODUCTION For several years, PACT and PASS have voiced concerns regarding the inconsistencies in administering discipline to PCSSD students. Teachers became very optimistic in November of 1999 when the PCSSD approved a new desegregation plan that was more process-oriented in the area of discipline; a desegregation plan that would examine all facets of discipline in PCSSD. The Court approved the PCSSD Desegregation Plan 2000 on February 22, 2000. The discipline provisions, as outlined in Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000, addressed many teacher concerns regarding discipline in the PCSSD schools and contained tirnelines for completion and/or implementation. The specific terms of Section F (Discipline) are as follows: Paragraph 1 initiated the process that was to fully assess the District's efforts to eliminate racial disparities in the imposition of discipline. This involved maintaining discipline records on all students and collecting the relevant data. Paragraph 2 called for the PCSSD to develop criteria for identifying: (i/ teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems which require attention; (ii) schools which have atypically high discipline rates; and (iii) schools which have atypically high racial disparities in discipline. PCSSD was to submit this information to the Joshua Intervenors no later than 45 days after Court approval of Plan 2000 (May 5, 2000). Paragraph 3 required the PCSSD to provide assistance to school personnel identified by the criteria outlined in Paragraph 2. Paragraph 4 called for the creation of a Discipline Study Panel to consider causes for the high rates of discipline for African-American students and possible 1 remedies. This included: reviewing discipline records; interviewing and/or surveying African-American students; and considering possible relationships between unmet academic needs and discipline rates. A written study was to be completed no later than 150 days after Court approval of Plan 2000 (August 18, 2000) and was to include suggested measures for prevention and intervention. Paragraph 5 required the PCSSD to develop a specific initiative to reduce the rates of discipline in the PCSSD shown in ODM's report dated March 18, 1998. This was to be implemented no later than 150 days after Court approval of Plan 2000 (August 18, 2000). Paragraph 6 required PCSSD to adhere to the policies set forth in its Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline. The fact that timelines were attached gave Plan 2000 credibility to teachers. PACT and PASS genuinely believed that, for the first time, the District would conduct a full-scale review . of the discipline procedures in a serious and purposeful way, one that would eventually lead to better discipline in the classroom and fair and equitable treatment for students. However, the PCSSD has disregarded established timelines, misinterpreted key components, misrepresented the facts, and generally delayed its desegregation obligations as outlined in Section F (Discipline). DISREGARD FOR EST ABISHED TIMELINES Rather than anticipate Court approval of Plan 2000 and develop a preliminary schedule of meeting dates the way PCSSD did in its Middle School Conversion Plan, the PCSSD chose to wait until the week prior to the August 9, 2000 hearing before the Court to even begin compliance efforts for Section F (Discipline). This was approximately nine (9) months after PCSSD approval of Plan 2000 and approximately five (5) months after Court approval of Plan 2000. By the time compliance efforts for Section F (Discipline) started on August 11 , 2000: 1) The 45-day timeline for developing criteria and submitting it to Joshua as outlined in paragraph 2 had passed; 2) The timeline, as outlined in paragraph 4, for completing a written study on the work done by the Discipline Study Panel (a panel that had not even begun any of its work) was within one (1) week of passing; and 3) The timeline for implementing the specific initiative outlined in paragraph 5 was within one ( 1) week of passing. Once compliance with Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000 was actually initiated by the PCSSD there was nothing organized or deliberate about its efforts. There was no discipline data relevant to the in-depth study that was to be conducted, and the Discipline Study Panel that was convened on August 11, 2000 could not do any of its work until paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section F (Discipline) had been completed. Moreover, the charge of the Discipline Study Panel changed with every meeting, as did the make-up of the group. The charge went from \"conducting a comprehensive study on the disciplining of African-American students\" on August 11, 2000, to 2 \"developing strategies and criteria to eliminate racial disparities in discipline\" on September 8, 2000, to \"discussing proposed methods for determining racial disparity in discipline and identifying teachers and staff who are experiencing problems which require attention\" on October 31, 2000, to \"establishing criteria for identifying i, ii, and iii in paragraph 2\" on November 9, 2000, to \"continue criteria development\" on November 16, 2000. The charge of the Panel changed like the wind to the point that members of the Panel, themselves, were confused as to what they were actually there to do. CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF CORRESPONDENCE AND EVENTS (Misinterpretation of Key Components of Plan 2000) (Misrepresentation of the Facts) August 4, 2000 August 11, 2000 August 14, 2000 Memo from Dr. Ruth Herts, Director of Equity, to teachers stating that the first meeting date of the Discipline Study Panel would be August 11, 2000. An excerpt from Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000 that pertained to the work of the Panel was included with the memo. Letter from Attorney John Walker to Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel, stating that Joshua would not be able to effectively participate in the August 11, 2000 meeting of the Discipline Study Panel for several reasons, one of which was \"the predicate basis of the work of the discipline study committee [sic] had not been provided.\" First meeting of the Discipline Study Panel as described in paragraph 4 of Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000. Dr. Herts provided an agenda for the meeting. The first four items on the agenda were discussed, including the purpose/charge of the Panel as outlined in F (4). Mr. Walker informed the Panel that the District waited too late to get started and that he would file a Contempt of Court Motion. When asked why the District had waited so long to get started, Mr. Collins responded by saying, \"The Superintendent wanted to wait until the new Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services was on board.\" The Panel passed a motion to discontinue the meetings until such time as all parties could participate. Memo from Dr. Herts regarding correspondence to Eddie Collins from the Joshua Intervenors urging the PCSSD to respond to requests by Joshua as a \"matter of good faith effort on the part of the District.\" Memo from Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent of Equity \u0026 Pupil Services, stating that the next meeting of the Discipline Study Panel would be August 24, 2000. 3 August 21, 2000 Memo from PACT President, Deen Minton, stating that the teachers on the Panel would not be able to attend the August 24, 2000 meeting. This was on the fourth day of school and teachers wanted and needed to be in their classrooms early into a new school year in order to \"set the tone\" for the year. August 28, 2000 Memo from PACT President, Deen Minton, to Karl Brown stating that the teachers on the Panel would not be able to attend a September 8, 2000 meeting. Teachers wanted and needed to be in their classrooms for SAT-9 preparation and testing. August 29, 2000 Memo from Karl Brown to Discipline Study Panel members noting that the August 24, 2000 meeting was officially rescheduled for September 8, 2000. The statecl purpose of the meeting was '\"to develop strategies and criteria to eliminate racial disparities in discipline in the District.\" September 8, 2000 Meeting with administrator representatives on the Discipline Study Panel and Margie Powell of ODM. September 14, 2000 Memo from Dr. Welch, Director of Pupil Services \u0026 Athletics, to members of the Discipline  Study Panel stating that the next meeting was October 3, 2000. Minutes from the September 8, 2000 meeting stated that '\"this committee [sic] is charged with completing an assessment of the objective of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline\" and that \"this committee [sic] also has the responsibility to review discipline records and conduct an interview and/or survey with AfricanAmerican students regarding their experiences in the system in general and in the discipline process in particular.\" The minutes also reflected that consensus was reached on several paragraphs in Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000; however, this was a consensus reached at a meeting with only the administrative representatives from the Panel present. September 15, 2000 Memorandum #A-00-035-R from Superintendent Smith, Karl Brown, and Dr. Clowers, Director of Accountability, to all principals revising the collection of data procedures for Section F (Discipline), paragraph 1 of Plan 2000. (a) The memo states that \"specific proposals have been sent to the Joshua Intervenors that specify criteria, data collection, . and analysis methodology to address Section F (Discipline), part 2, subsections i and iii of the Plan.\" The memo disregarded item ii altogether and further specified that the very criteria the Panel was charged with developing had 4 October 3, 2000 supposedly already been sent to Joshua. PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel had no knowledge of, and certainly no input into anything sent to Joshua. (b) This memo identifies \"principals or other administrative staff' in the definition of \"staff member\" as outlined in Plan 2000. Even though the memo referred to administrators as \"staff members,\" the criteria and analysis methodology used solely targeted teachers. The memo implies administrators are included as staff members as per Plan 2000; however, the fact is that they are not. ( c) Attachments to this memo contained a page entitled \"Reason Codes\" and one entitled \"Response Codes.\" Reason codes are the reasons students are disciplined and should correspond to the rules in the Handbook/or Student Conduct and Discipline. Response codes are the actions that administrators take when a rule has been broken and should correspond to the consequences outlined in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline. These codes do not align with those in the Handbook, thus making data collection using these codes flawed and rendering the data itself useless. Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. No agenda provided. There was an objection made by PACT and PASS because the make-up of the Panel had changed from the August 11, 2000 initial meeting (two more administrators were present). Panel members inspected a 378-page document titled, \"Activity Tracker Detail Report.\" This was a detailed account of each student's discipline data for the 1999-2000 school year. While reviewing this report, it was noticed that many rule numbers listed did not correlate to those in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline. In other words, students were being suspended for breaking rules that were not delineated in the PCSSD's discipline policies as set forth in the Handbook. Panel members stated that the Computer Center should make sure that all rule numbers and consequences align with the District's policies as described in Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, since this is the docwnent that parents and students must sign for every year. The PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel requested to review all referrals written and to be provided with a breakdown of suspensions by rule number violated/gender/race. The Panel was told that there was not enough room to hold all the referrals written and that there were problems with the \"people downstairs\" in that 5 October 12, 2000 October 23, 2000 October 31, 2000 November 9, 2000 they were having trouble getting data from the Computer Center. PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel stated that without the requested data, the Panel could not do what it was responsible for doing. Mr. Brown responded by saying, \"We are out of compliance anyway, so there's no need to rush.\" Dr. Welch sent copies of PCSSD Annual Disciplinary Report Summaries for 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-00 to the members of the Discipline Study Panel. These reports did not contain a breakdown of suspensions by rule number/race/gender as requested. Memo# A-00-081 from Dr. Welch to members of the Discipline Study Panel stating that the next meeting was October 31, 2000. Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. Agenda provided. Mr. John Walker and Ms. Joy Springer attended part of the meeting. Mr. Walker stated that it was the District's responsibility, not the Panel's, to develop and submit to Joshua the criteria for identifying teachers and other staff experiencing problems and schools with high discipline rates. He stated that this had not been done. Dr. Clowers said that he had talked to Sam Jones and that the criteria and method used for evaluating the criteria had been sent to Joshua on August 29, 2000. Before he left, Mr. Walker stated that the Panel was not to be administrator-controlled. Brenda Bowles, Coordinator for Multicultural Curriculum, stated that \"we\" could do paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Section F (Discipline) and submit it to Joshua. No vote was taken. Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. Agenda provided. Dr. Welch was elected Chair of the Panel and Georgia Norris was elected as Recorder. The first item on the agenda was to establish criteria for identifying i, ii, and iii in paragraph 2 of Section F (Discipline). The Panel was now being asked to develop criteria that had already been sent to Joshua. (See Memorandum #A-00-035-R dated September 15, 2000 and October 31, 2000). Brenda Bowles prepared a \"Criteria\" sheet for identifying schools, based on discussions by the Panel. The Panel passed a motion that all rules must align with those in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline. PACT and PASS continued to stress the importance of aligning reason codes and response codes with the PCSSD's discipline policies set forth in the Handbook/or Student Conduct and Discipline. In order to conduct a comprehensive study on discipline, it is imperative to have complete and accurate data. Student disciplinary records must reflect the correct rule 6 that was broken and the actual discipline imposed in order to determine whether students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. PACT and PASS have no knowledge that an alignment of the codes with the Handbook bas yet occurred. Heated discussions centered on Dr. Clowers' method of identifying teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems. Dr. Clowers interpreted this to mean ''those teachers and staff members who send atypically large numbers of students to a building administrator for disciplinary referral.\" The PACT and PASS representatives strongly disagreed with his interpretation and the formula he developed for several reasons: 1. The term \"problem\" needs to be clearly defined; 2. Dr. Clowers' formula creates an automatic bias against the teachers. It makes discipline problems appear to be the result of some failing on the part of the teacher and it singles-out teachers because teachers are the only ones who write disciplinary referrals. The Disciplinary Referral Form is the negotiated form used by teachers when excluding a student from class for disciplinary reasons. Although administrators are considered \"other staff members,\" they take action on the referral, they don't write it. Therefore, the administrator would never be identified as \"experiencing problems\" using Dr. Clowers' formula. 3. Teachers do not impose consequences for discipline (suspensions, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.), administrators do. Yet, nowhere in Dr. Clowers' formula are the building level administrator's actions on the referral taken into account or analyzed. 4. When reviewing a teacher's referrals, violations need to be categorized as \"classroom infractions\" versus \"other Handbook infractions\" because there are many infractions that are beyond a teacher's control (i.e., fighting, possessing a weapon, smoking, etc.). 5. It is unclear whether Dr. Clowers' formula actually identifies teachers who write atypically large numbers of referrals or who send atypically large numbers of students to the office. In either case, his method does not provide the data that is necessary to address the underlying intent of Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000, which is to eliminate racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. 7 6. PCSSD 'Policy and the negotiated Master Contract hold teachers responsible for the behavior of students and expect that, \"when and where unacceptable behavior occurs to take appropriate action.\" This creates a Catch-22 situation for teachers. Teachers who are \"unable to assist the student to maintain proper controls of his behavior\" are to refer that student to the appropriate administrator using a Disciplinary Referral Form. However, for each referral form written, the teacher receives a \"tally mark.\" Too many '\u003ctally marks\" will result in a teacher being \"redflagged\" and identified as possibly having a problem with discipline. Administrators are using the '\u003ctally marks\" to intimidate teachers to not write referrals. While this intimidation might decrease the actual number of referrals written, thereby looking good on paper, the results are: 1) student discipline is not improved; 2) student misbehaviors are not corrected; and 3) disparities in discipline are not addressed. But, because the PCSSD can point to fewer referrals written, it once again can pat itself on the back for a job-well-done when in. fact, it has done absolutely nothing to address, much less achieve, its actual goal of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of discipline. 7. The PACT and PASS believe that the inequities causing a disparity in discipline exist in the actions taken by the administrator, not in the number of referrals written by a teacher. This actual example was discussed at one of the Panel meetings to show that inequities in administrative actions do exist: Two male students, one black and one white, were both referred by a teacher for violating Rule #3. The teacher wrote two referrals; therefore she received two \"tally marks\". The administrator suspended one of the male students and only conferenced with the other. The inequity is in the consequence imposed, not in the number of referrals written. However, using Dr. Clowers' criteria and analysis methodology, these administrative actions are not recorded or analyzed anywhere. November 16, 2000 Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. No agenda provided. Dr. Welch told the Panel that there were still problems \"downstairs\" so the data that was requested was still not available. PACT and PASS requested that all principals in the District submit to the Panel ALL discipline forms, other than the negotiated referral form, that are being used in their buildings. The Panel needed to see what other forms individual building principals are requiring teachers to use to report discipline infractions in order to clarify how data was being collected. This inf orrnation was never 8 March 19, 2001 April 3, 2001 May 3, 2000 provided. The District continued to collect data from only one form when, in reality, some schools use other forms. Again this leads to inaccurate data collection. The Panel reviewed all referrals written at Sylvan Hills Jr. High throughout the 1999-2000 school year to get an understanding of how consequences were administered. It was stated that the next meeting would be the last week of November or the first week of December. Dr. Welch would notify Committee members when it would be. Memo from Dr. Welch stating that the next meeting of the Discipline Study Panel would be on April 3, 2001, approximately four ( 4) months after the Panel said it would next meet. Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. No agenda provided. Dr. Welch gave Panel members a seven-page document containing the six (6) paragraphs of Section F (Discipline) indicating responsibilities, specific tasks, etc., and a discipline data collection grid. Dr. Welch stated that the criteria that would be sent to Joshua would be \"that little grid coupled with Clowers' formula for identifying schools as significant or not significant.\" It was agreed that no names would ever be released; however, identification of teachers was not discussed. Discussion centered on each school's Equity Monitoring Team reviewing school data for item iii of paragraph 2. No vote was taken. The Computer Center complied with the October 3, 2000 request for a breakdown of suspensions by rule number, gender, and race. Dr. Welch had only one copy of this report titled, \"SAS System Breakdown by Rule/Gender/Race.\" He stated that he would send each Panel member a copy later. Panel members have yet to receive their copies. Dr. Welch generated a status report on the progress of the Discipline Study Panel. This report stated that, \"At the April 3, 2001 meeting of the Discipline Panel, it was agreed to go forward with the following proposal as agreed to by the Panel\" and that the Panel worked together to develop criteria for Section F (Discipline), paragraph 2, subsections i, ii, and iii in Plan 2000. It was further stated that these criteria had been \"agreed upon\" by the Panel. Much of the material contained in this report is false. The Panel did not agree to Dr. Clowers' criteria or his formula for identifying \"teachers and other staff members experiencing problems which require attention.\" PACT and PASS representatives repeatedly stated, for the record, that the Knight Intervenors reserved the right to submit a separate report. The 9 May 7, 2001 Panel did not disagree with the use of Dr. Clowers' method of identifying schools with high discipline rates and high racial disparities. Dr. Clowers explained that a school would be identified as \"significant\" or \"not significant\" using a statistical calculation known as a \"large-sample confidence interval for the difference of two proportions.\" The criteria for identifying schools as \"significant\" or \"not significant\" was discussed in detail. This report was presented to the PCSSD School Board at its May Board Meeting. At this School Board meeting the PACT President pointed out to the School Board which parts of the report were inaccurate or misleading and expressed PACT and PASS concerns with the Discipline Study Panel and with the implementation of Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000. PACT and PASS Panel members received another report, dated May 7, 2001, on June 7, 2001. This report contained some infonnation that was never even discussed in any of the Discipline Study Panel meetings. The material, which was sent to Karl Brown by Dr .. Welch, regarded Plan 2000 Discipline Criteria. This packet of material contained three (3) separate documents, prepared by Dr. Clowers, describing the criteria and procedures that he was going to use to address Section F (Discipline), item 2, subsections i, ii, and iii of Plan 2000. Two of these procedures are word-for-word what they were on November 9, 2000 when the Panel discussed them. One procedure was agreed to (subsection iii) and one was strongly disagreed to (subsection i). The third procedure, (subsection ii), had never before been seen by the PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel. PACT and PASS have no idea why 5% was used and had never seen the graphs and charts that accompanied the document. However, it was erroneously reported that there had been \"meaningful input by all concerned parties\". CONCLUSION The Knight Intervenors are deeply concerned by the PCSSD's minimal efforts to comply with Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000 and are disturbed by the PCSSD's dictatorial behavior throughout the process. Even though a Discipline Study Panel was indeed formed per Section F (Discipline), its composition changed often and it was given charge after charge. However, decisions made by the Panel were ignored and the PCS SD essentially worked in isolation of the Panel. The PCSSD continues to disregard established timelines, misinterpret key components, and misrepresent facts surrounding its efforts to comply with Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000. In Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000, the PCSSD committed to eliminate \"racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline.\" This commitment was made twenty (20) months ago and approved by the Court sixteen (16) months ago, yet the PCSSD has still not completed or implemented provisions contained in Section F (Discipline). The very foundation of the PCSSD's compliance efforts, the collection of accurate and/or complete data, has yet to be carried out. Mathematicians would agree that solving any problem in statistics involves the following three steps: (1) definition of the problem; (2) collection of the data; and (3) analysis of the data. If the problem is misinterpreted and is not clearly defined and if the data collected is inaccurate and/or incomplete, then the analysis will most likely be flawed. Such is the case in Dr. Clowers' misinterpretation of the \"problem\" and his subsequent analysis methodology. Dr. Clowers interpreted paragraph 2, subsection i, \"teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems\" to mean those teachers and staff members who send large numbers of students  to a building administrator for disciplinary referral. The PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel strongly disagreed with Dr. Clowers' interpretation of subsection i and just as strongly objected to his analysis methodology. The Knight Intervenors see the \"problem\" as the racial disparity that exists in the imposition of discipline, not the total nwnber of referrals written. In other words, a disparity could exist whether 2 or 200 referrals were written because the disparity is not in the number of referrals written by the teacher, the disparity exists in the nature of the discipline imposed by the administrator (suspension, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.). Dr. Clowers' statistical analysis does nothing to identify true problems. (See November 9, 2000 under \"Chronological Account of Correspondence and Events) Contrary to information contained in the May 3, 2001 and the May 7, 2001 status reports, the Discipline Study Panel was never involved in the development of, and certainly never agreed to the criteria for identifying \"teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems\" as described in paragraph 2, subsection i of Plan 2000. How could the Panel \"develop and agree to\" criteria that was supposedly submitted to the Joshua Intervenors on August 29, 2000 when, in reality, the Panel had only met one time prior to that date (August 11, 2000) and had not addressed that topic at all? (See August 11 , 2000 and September 15, 2000 under \"Chronological Account of Correspondence and Events\") ODM, in its report dated March 18, 1998, made several recommendations to the PCSSD on ways to improve discipline procedures and reduce racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. A few of the suggestions included: 1) offering staff development activities and training based on demonstrated need, rather than routine offerings; 2) modifying discipline plans if they are faulty, \"don't wait too long to determine why;\" 3) holding district-wide discipline summits where everyone can get the same information at the same time; 4) encouraging shared decision-making; and 5) sharing reports and other relevant discipline information with all employees. Had the PCSSD taken any or all of the suggestions made by ODM nearly three years ago, the PCSSD could have quite possibly achieved its objective of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. However contrary to ODM recommendations, currently teachers receive no training whatsoever from the PCSSD in the area of discipline; site-based shared decision making is discouraged; and the PC "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1234","title":"Oral deposition of Judy Magness","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2001-10-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance","School board members","Court records","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Judy Magness"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1234"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["21 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at the Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n   CERTIFIED COPY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF MRS JUDY MAGNESS DATE: October 5, 2001 TIME: 1:07 p.m. PLACE: The Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm 400 West Capitol, Suite #2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendants: Mr. John w. Walker, Attorney John w. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Clay Fendley, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, The John w. Walker Law Firm Tony Rose, Sue Strickland, \u0026amp; Katherine Mitchell, Deponents Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - CERTIFIED COPY AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL ... SWEARING OF THE WITNESS .. EXAMINATION OF MRS. JUDY MAGNESS By Mr. Walker .. SIGNATURE SHEET .... ERRATA SHEET. . COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION .. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax PAGE . . . 3 . . 3 .3-67 . .   68 .69 . 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of Judy Magness, produced, sworn and examined at the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm, 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 commencing at 1:07 p.m., on October 5, 2001, in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition by witness, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G S THEREUPON, JUDY MAGNESS having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. State your name Mrs. Magness. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 4 A. Judy Magness. Q. I'm smiling Mrs. Magness because I recall a conversation you and I had involving Dr. Henry Williams, do you recall that? A. We had several, which one? Q. Well, there was one when you were real hopeful that things would work with him and he would remain here--- A. Is that the telephone call I made to you? Q. Yeah. A. I'm still hopeful of that Mr. Walker. Q. Were you aware that he's back in Kansas City according to legend as principal of a charter school? A. No, but I think he'd be good at that\nhe really cares about kids. Q. Well, I just mentioned that. I thought about it when we thought about his deposition. You don't have to--- A. And I think at the time--- Q. respond to that. A. that I said to you, you know, it would be wonderful--Q. You don\"t have to put this on there. A. Why not. Q. Because it's not going to be helpful to Judge Wright. But I just--- A. That I always encouraged you to be a statesman and--Q. Oh, I'll give you an opportunity to say that--- A. Okay. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 5 Q. I mean on the record. I'll give you an opportunity to--FENDLEY: Let's just leave all of this on the record. WALKER: Well, that's fine\nwe\"ll leave it on the record. Now let me get to the questions. Q. Mrs. Magness, do you believe in racial segregation? A. Absolutely not. Q. Are you a member of any organization dedicated and devoted to eliminating racial segregation in your private activities? A. Say that one more time. Q. Are you a dues paying member of any association which has the purpose of eliminating racial discrimination? A. I don't pay many dues to organizations I'm apart of. Q. Well, I guess the answer is no. A. I'm trying to think about that. Q. We can come back to it, I'll go on to something else because I want to be, I want to be faithful to what I said about trying to get out of here brief as possible. REPORTER: Speak up Mr. Walker. Q. What is your interpretation of the term eliminate achievement disparity between the races, just those words? Eliminate achievement disparity between the races, what, how do you construe that? A. I construe that to mean that by some assessment, pick any, you know there's several so you would have to decide that any Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 CERTIFIED COPY 6 person taking that assessment regardless of their race would do as well as the next person. But that takes in to consideration all that has going in to the making each of those people. Q. I'm just asking now--- A. into each persons. Q. you\"re a college graduate, right? A. Yes. Q. Masters degree? A. No. Q. What\"s your degree in? A. Education. Q. I see. You were a teacher at one time? A. Years ago. Q. I see. Mrs. Magness I just asked you a question to tell me what the term meant, eliminate achievement disparity between the races. I didn't ask you how it comes about, what does that term mean, eliminate the achievement disparity between the races? A. Did you say achievement disparity the time before? Q. Yes, ma\"am. Eliminate achievement disparity between the races, what does that mean? A. That any person could achieve what another person could. Q. Does not the word eliminate mean to end? A. Yes. Q. Does not it means ah, does not it contemplate affirmative Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164- 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 1 action? A. Well--- Q. I'm going to eliminate dirt in this room, that means that I'm going to come in here and get a broom or something and eliminate dirt in this room. Eliminate means to remove doesn't it? A. One definition. Q. Can you tell me any other definition or synonym that means something other than to remove? Any other synonym that relates to eliminating? A. Well, I mean you can get several\nwhy? Q. Well, the point is I'm trying to find out here--A. If I understand English? Q. Yes, ma\"am--- A. Uh-huh. Q. that's part of it. Now achievement disparity, what does that mean to you between the races? A. That there would be a difference in the way one group ah, reflected what they were able to do as opposed to another. Q. Now Mrs. Strickland--- A. No. Q. I mean, not Mrs. Strickland but Mrs. Magness--- A. That's okay, people get us mixed up all the time. Q. No, no, no, no I don't, I don\"t\ny'all are two different people. Do you perceive that there is an achievement disparity Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY between the races or students in the Little Rock School District? A. I guess it will depend upon--Q. You can\"t answer that--- A. what measurement you\"re taking--- 8 Q. just a moment, can you answer that first of all yes or no\nis there an achievement disparity? A. Ah, I mean you're going to have to go a little more in depth there. Q. All right. I'm going to tell you, I want you to answer your questions like you are --- A. Uh-huh. Q. but it will be much more of a pleasure for me to put you on the stand and have you answer like this. I'm trying to get though some direct answers. A. Great. Q. Do you understand that there--is there, is there an achievement disparity right now between the races in the Little Rock School District that is evident? A. On some recent test scores that we received, namely ACTAP--- Q. Go ahead. A. there was a difference in the scores between all of the races that we serve in the Little Rock School District. Q. My question is there an achievement disparity between black Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box J4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CERTlFl\"ED COPY 9 students and nonblack students\nthat's really what I'm talking about. A. The test scores reflected a difference--Q. I see. A. in those groups, yes. Q. Has there ever during your dozen years on the board--A. No. Q. Is it thirteen? A. No. Q. How many, nine? A. Seven. Q. Seven. During your seven years on the board has there ever been a time when there was not an achievement disparity between the black and the white students? A. Not as reflected on test scores that I've seen. Q. I see. Now during that time before 1998 and your tenure on the board, did the board ever by a board resolution or motion determine as its purpose to eliminate the achievement disparity between the races? 20 A. There was never a formal vote--- 21 Q. All right. 22 A. or resolution because our intent--- 23 Q. No, no, no, no, you can't keep--- 24 _ A. was always to--- 25 Q. Mrs., Mrs--- Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 CERTIFIED COPY 10 FENDLEY: She can answer. WALKER: She cannot--- A. our intent was always to--- WALKER: She can't state, just a moment, let me say this. She cannot state the intent of other people. She cannot talk about a collective intent. The only way that intent is manifested is by a vote\notherwise she's giving an opinion about somebody else's opinion or purpose. FENDLEY: Well, she can--- MAGNESS: When we voted to approve this--FENDLEY: she can give her opinion and you can make your objection to whether or not she's authorized to make that opinion or not. WALKER: See, I'm going to ask if there was a vote\nI didn't ask why there wasn't a vote. Q. Was there a vote? A. Restate your question. Q. Was there ever a vote of the board to eliminate the achievement disparity between black and white students before 1998? A. In other words someone would have said I move--- Q. Yes. A. that we eliminate disparity between--- Q. Yes, ma' am. A. No. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 CERT\\F\\ED COPY 11 Q. I see. Now do you know what was in the minds of every board member throughout this period of time, these seven years? I'm serious since you say you know what they thought. Do you know what was in--- A. I did not say I know what they thought. Q. I see. A. and no, I do not know what they thought. Q. Well, you were fixing to say the reason that they didn't do something was because of what--you can't speak for anybody but yourself can you Mrs. Magness? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Now when you came onto the board what was the standard by which student achievement was assessed? A. At that time it was one of the national test and I am thinking that it was one of the SAT\"s, it wasn\"t IX but it was one of the ones prior to that. Q. But they have different SAT'S don't they? They have SAT IV, SAT VI--- A. Yeah, they change them. Q. Yes, but it was always a SAT test wasn\"t it\nSAT test? A. As far as I recall it was. Q. That's called a Standardized Achievement Test isn\"t it? A. With the exception of, of course, students who take the AP classes have an opportunity--- Q. To take? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. to take the AP exams. Q. But let me ask you--- CERTIFIED COPY 12 A. and that would be referenced against other students across the nation that take those. Q. But my question is--what does SAT stand for, Mr--A. Standardize Achievement Test. FENDLEY: I think it's Stanford. MAGNESS: Stanford? It is Stanford, you\"re right. Stanford Achievement Test\nright, thank you. Q. Now have you all, have you all ever abandoned the Stanford Achievement Test? A. Ah, we scaled back on it. Q. When did you do so? A. About--! can't remember if it was two or three years ago because we were going to use other test that we thought would give us better information. Q. Who thought, the board, this collective board? A. Yes. Q. Did the board--- A. The board voted to do that\ncorrect. Q. They voted to do that? A. Right. Q. Did they vote the scale back on the test, the Stanford test? A. They voted to do the Stanford test in grades 4, 8, and 10 I Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 13 believe. Q. That was enlarging it wasn't it, putting it to use in more grades wasn't it? A. No. Q. How many grades had they used it in before? A. What, it started three or third or fourth grade through eleven\nwe were giving it to all of them. Q. I see. Now those test always showed that there was an achievement gap didn't they between black and white students? A. As whole groups\nyes. Q. I see. Does not, are you familiar with the court rulings in this case? A. Well, I have read most of them that I have received\nI don\"t know what are you referring to. Q. Doesn\"t the model relate to African-American students as a group rather than as individuals? A. Yes. Q. And does not the term eliminating the achievement disparity between the races apply in your opinion, to eliminating the achievement disparity between black students or AfricanAmerican students as a race in comparison to white students or nonblack students as a race or group? A. And where are you seeing that phrasing? Q. I'm just saying, we\"re talking about the class of students being African-American aren't we? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 14 A. Well, and you're stating, I mean is that wording in one of the documents? Q. No. We\"re talking, if you want to have a disparity, you can fend with me if you wish, if you want to have a disparity judgment it got to be between one group and another doesn\"t it? A. Yeah, but we serve more than two groups of students. Q. I understand. But you lump the students as either for our purposes--- A. Uh-huh. Q. as either African-American or black as one group, right? A. Uh-huh. Q. And all other students--FENDLEY: Yes. A. Yes, yes\nI\"m sorry. Q. All right. All the other students are put in that category aren't they? A. For some report\nyes. Q. All right. Now do you believe that you all have committed to eliminate the achievement disparity between the races to any one at any time? A. You want to--- Q. Have you ever as a board made the commitment to eliminate achievement disparity between the races? A. In what ways are you wanting to know? Q. I'm just saying has there ever been that board commitment Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 15 in a document? A. Yeah. Q. I see. Now isn\"t it true also that you committee to in taking the state\"s money, twenty million dollars, that you eliminate, that you agreed to bring the, to narrow the gap to a point where black students and white students were within ten points of each other? A. That was the old agreement. Q. Well, has the agreement with the state ever changed? Well, if you call the old agreement, has that agreement with the state ever changed? I mean I would like to see it if it has changed. Where is the state agreement. A. Well, quite frankly I don't remember the ah--do you have that, the last--- Q. The old agreement--- A. it was worked out with the state? FENDLEY: Not with me, no. MAGNESS: Okay, because I would need to be refreshed on that before I could answer anything on it. FENDLEY: I mean, you just tell him you don\"t know. MAGNESS: Okay. WALKER: That\"s fine. Q. You say the old agreement some how or another has changed and you\"re no longer committed. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box J4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED copy 16 A. Now, I didn\"t say it has changed, I said the old agreement said that. Q. Well, what about are you familiar with the--is the old agreement still in effect? A. Which old, which one? Q. The one that you talked about, that old agreement that you said that was under the old agreement\nis it still--- A. I don't know, I don't know. Q. Well, tell me then what's the basis of your statement that that was under the old agreement\nso what\"s if it's under the old agreement? Has that agreement been modified in your opinion? A. I do not know. Well, let me put it this way, I don't remember. I know we have been in discussions with the state and worked something out but particulars I do not know. Q. Do you know if the Joshua Intervenors were parties to that agreement? A. I don't know. Q. Do you agree or have your lawyers informed you that they represented to the court that the revised plan on January 16, 1998 incorporated the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals seven elements which it considered to be crucial and with respect to which no retreat would be approved? A. Yes. Q. And one of them was the effort to eliminate achievement Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box i4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 disparity between the races? A. Yes. CERTIFIED COPY 17 Q. Now do you agree that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement? A. I don't think that's the only one. Q. Have you represented to the court that that was the only legitimate one? FENDLEY: You personally? WALKER: I mean the board. A. Not me personally. Q. I mean the board. Has not the board, you were president of the board in 1998 weren't you? A. Right. Q. You read this memorandum to the district court didn't you? A. That's correct. Q. And that\"s what it says here\nisn't that your commitment? A. That's right. Q. Now are you backing away from that commitment now? A. Absolutely not. Q. I see. Now are you saying that this is not the only one? Why would you tell the court that this is only legitimate means if it's not the only one? 24 . A. No, let\"s back up. 25 Q. Just a minute. Cobb Court Reporting p, o. Box f4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 18 A. Your question was--- Q. Just a minute, let me go back. I said do you agree that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement. I asked you that question and you said no, not the only one. A. It, it's not the only legitimate way. As Mr. Berkley stated--- Q. Well, why would you say that--- A. it's the only acceptable way because the other way could be that we would try to drag down other kids scores and that, and you could narrow it. Q. You don't have to drag down anybody's, you don't have to drag down any--- A. I hope not because we\"re not going to do that. Q. Just a moment, just a moment. You don't have to drag down anybody's scores if you focus on improving African-American achievement do you? A. That's correct. Q. So as you teach these white kids and you focus--A. As we teach all kids. Q. no, as you teach these white kids who are already up, you can focus on the deficiencies of the black kids can you not? A. Yes. Q. Specifically, that doesn't bring the white kids down does it Mrs. Magness? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 19 A. No. You asked me if that was the only legitimate what to do it and my answer was no, that's not the only legitimate way but that\"s the only acceptable way to do it. Q. Well, we're not talking about in this lawsuit bringing anybody\"s achievement down are we? A. I hope not Mr. Walker. Q. Well now .if you say that it's the only legitimate way if by improving African-American achievement, that means then you have to focus on African-American achievement doesn\"t it? A. Yes. Q. Which means that you, by focusing upon African-American achievement, means that you have to focus away from all students to African-American students doesn't it? A. No. Q. Doesn't it mean that if you have a disparity you have been focusing upon all children? A. Not necessarily. Q. All right. Why is the disparity there you're going to say, tell me you\"re going to say it's because of socioeconomics? A. I'm going to say there are lot of reasons for disparity. Q. What are they, what are they in your professional opinion? A. From everything I've read and heard there are several reasons we have disparity. One could be that the test are bias. Another is socioeconomic. Another is parent involvement. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 20 Q. What else? A. Well, of course, the experiences that the child has and the readiness to learn when they get to school. Q. Well, you knew all of these things when you all entered into the settlement agreement in '89--- A. That's right--well, I don't know about that. Q. and you knew of all of those things when you entered into it in 1998. A. That's correct. FENDLAND: You, she knew? WALKER: Meaning the board. Q. You knew those things. A. Uh-huh, yes. Q. What you're saying now is that's not something you just learned last week? A. No. Q. All right. So if you knew those things and you still make the commitment to eliminate the achievement disparity it is based isn't it that there is no inherent racial inferiority of black people? FENDLEY: Let me object to the question and you say committed to eliminate the achievement disparity. WALKER: You may. Q. First of all you do accept the notion that there is no such thing as white superiority and black inferiority, isn't that Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 21 correct? A. That is correct. Q. All right. So once you accept the premise that all people are equal then you have to accept the premise that all students can learn don\"t you? A. Absolutely. Q. All right. And then that means that you make them, I mean you put them in that best posture so they can learn equally well don't you? A. Yes. Q. That's why you adopted English as a second language, for instance, for the Hispanic children? A. Right. Q. And that's recognition of the fact that they had a deficiency with respect to being able to understand English--A. Uh-huh. Q. to the same extent. So that means if you focus on the Hispanics you can focus upon black people doesn't it? A. Right. Q. Now where are the focus programs that have been developed in accordance with 2.7--- A. Okay. Q. what are the focus programs? A. Some of them would include the pre-K III initiatives in the elementary schools--- cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. Right. A. and the fact that we have increased our four-year-old programs and those have always been there for students whose background need enrichment. Q. Pre-K is one, what are the other programs? A. Okay, the--- FENDLAND: Pre-Kand Early, the Early one--WALKER: Early Childhood, what else. A. Ear--yeah, Early Childhood. Okay, the fourth--- 22 Q. Let me, let me, let me offer you a little bit better help. I'll let Mr. Fendley answer this question for you for the record and I'll adopt, let you adopt his answer since he\"s been on the Compliance Committee. If you want to answer for her Mr- FENDLEY: I'm not, you\"re not taking my deposition. WALKER: But I don\"t want you but I mean since you want to suggest some answers t o her. FENDLEY: I, you, she had already sai d the fouryear- old program and you--- MAGNESS: She was just, he was just repeating it. WALKER: He didn't say, she didn\"t say Early Childhood. Q. But I'm saying that's fine, if he wants to state them Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 23 whatever it is I'm going to tell you they don't exist. Pre-K, that one what else? A. Early Childhood. Q. Early Childhood, thank you. A. ELLA. Q. ELLA. A. Smart Step, Smart Start. In some of our schools we\"re using Success for All which is a proven model to particularly help those students who have not come in with the skills that they need. Q. What else? A. Ah, at Washington we have ah, what is that reading programs, it's been proven very effective in one of the ah, schools in the ah, delta down in southeast. Oh, it's a reading program, Direct Instruction and it has also met with a lot of national recognition. Q. What else? A. We have changed our math and science curriculums because we could tell from the scores that we were receiving that our students were not improving--- Q. What else? A. and ah, all the programs that we have put in have been ah, nationally recognized. Q. Well, name them\nI'm not asking you to explain them. A. Okay. Reading, writing workshop in our middle schools ah, Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164- 0004 Phone: (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY accelerated learning center for high school kids that needed more one-on-one and ah, another alternative--- Q. Well, just tell me the programs without explaining them. A. I might like to explain them. Q. I don't want you--- A. You may not know about them. Q. but I don't want you to explain them now but, you know, just tell me what they are. 24 A. Okay, let me see. Ah, increased use of computers which ah, can offer if used properly enhance instruction and achievement. Q. All right. A. We are improving our fine arts program with a new fine arts director--- Q. All right. A. based on research recently. And we went to the middle school concept, that's not exactly a program, that's more of a framework in which to put the programs. Q. All right, what else? A. But the framework also--Q. I'm not asking--- A. made it easier--- Q. I'm not asking for you to explain them--A. I am to explain to you that--- Q. No, no, I want you to answer my question. FENDLEY: But she\"s--Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY WALKER: No, no, no, no, she can't explain. FENDLEY: she's not wasting time. WALKER: No, no, no, no, no. I'm not, only asking her to identify the programs, I'm not asking her to explain them. 25 FENDLEY: Well, she\"s identifying some of them in my interpretation by explaining what they are as opposed to giving a name. WALKER: All right. If you don\"t mind her staying that's fine. MAGNESS: I have all afternoon. WALKER: Well good, thank you. Thank you, you know I can stay all night. A. Ah, the middle school structure does help our kids because a group of kids are taught by a group of teachers which hopefully then allows teachers to really be on top of the achievement of the students and give them any extra help they need, be sure they don't fall through the cracks, et cetera. I'll stop there. Q. No, I want the other programs, I want you to tell me all of the programs that you all have adopted. A. Those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head. Well, we do have some other good ones of course like East Labs, Cisco, university School--- Q. Cisco, okay go ahead\nUniversity School, what else? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. E-Slabs. Q. Okay. CERTIFIED COPY 26 A. And then we have our good program an McClellan the business education program that is, has been recognized and won lots of awards. Q. Has it won awards in Little Rock or won--A. Yes, yes. Q. Okay, when was that? A. Ah, either last year or the year before and then two years before that. Q. All right. All right, keep going. A. Well, let me see. At Central we have International Studies, Magnet. Q. All right, what else? A. umm, that's enough. Q. That\"s enough I'll as--- A. That\"s just ah, that\"s just a cross section. Q. Well, that's fine. I have listened and you more so than any of the other board members have identified these programs. But 2.71 talks about program evaluation. A. That's correct. Q. Have these programs been evaluated that you have just mentioned? A. Ah, some of them have--- Q. Well, the ones that are listed on here, I don\"t see a Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY single one that you listed on there, on here being listed on page 148 as having been evaluated. A. Okay. Q. Look, look, now make sure, look at--- A. 2.7. whatever does not say that it has to be a yearly written, formal, evaluation does it? 27 Q. Well now I don't know how you interpret this but I'm saying at least none of the programs that you have mentioned appear to have been listed under what you all reported to the court had been done as of March 15. Now I stand to be corrected, you say here program evaluation and you understand you all were committed to make program evaluation? A. Right, uh-huh. Q. All right. And then you say that in addition to--A. Well, your middle school was evaluated--- Q. Well, just a moment. A. and science was evaluated, science and math was evaluated. Q. Well now look, look. A. Uh-huh. Q. Math--show me if you can see middle school on there as something you reported to the court as having been evaluated? A. Ah, yes, it's up in one of the top paragraphs on here I think. Q. What does it say? A. Ah, let me let your read it. It's right in here. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 28 FENDLEY: Just for the record she's referring to the paragraphs under the heading Program Evaluation which discusses the board research agenda. Q. It says, P-R-E, is this what you\"re referring to? P-R-E prepared the initial components of the evaluations for pre-K III literacy, the National Science Foundation Project components, and the implementation of middle schools in August of 2000, that's the initial components. Now are you saying that you all have seen those final evaluations? A. We saw a draft--- Q. That's yes or no. Have you seen a final evaluation--A. Not the final. FENDLEY: She can answer any way she wants to. WALKER: My question is my question. FENDLEY: She doesn't have to answer yes or no. Q. Have you seen a final evaluation? I don't mean to fend with you, have you seen a final evaluation? A. No. Q. All right. And isn't it true that the board did not accept the evaluations that were presented? A. We saw the draft evaluations that were presented and we did not think that they were thorough enough--- Q. Mrs. Magness--- A. and we had questions about them so rather than accept flawed what we considered to be not as good as we would like Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box J4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 CERTIFIED COPY 29 evaluations, no we did not formally accept those. Q. All right now, I want you to have an understanding. If I want you opinion about how other people thought, I'll ask it. If I want an opinion about what the board did, I'll ask that. I object to anything where you speculate about the motivation of other people. Now this situation--- A. Well, obviously if we didn't formally accept them, we did not think they were what we wanted. Q. That's right. Now have you ever received what you wanted with respect to the evaluations that were presented? A. Which evaluations? Q. The ones that you referred to that you did not accept? A. We have not accepted a final evaluation of those programs. Q. I see. But yet you told the court that you had finally evaluated those programs didn't you? FENDLEY: Object as to form, that's not what we told the court. Q. Didn't you tell us that the evaluations had been completed? A. I don't know. Q. That's fine. Now I notice here you have Success For All as a program with some great review, is that right? A. It supposedly is and yes, it is working in some of our schools. Q. Okay. Were you aware that Dr. Lesley had eliminated Success For All in a number of schools? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY FENDLEY: Object as to form--Q. Were you aware of that? FENDLEY: it assumes facts not in evidence. WALKER: Well, it may not be in evidence but we're not in court. Q. Were you aware that she has eliminated Success For All? A. I was aware--- FENDLEY: Object as to the form of the questions. Q. Well, do you know whether she has, I'll put it that way. Do you know whether she's eliminated Success For All because 30 her notion was--first of all do you know if she's eliminated it before this year? A. Ah, I know that Success For All--- Q. Do you know is my question, do you know if she had eliminated the Success For All programs in a number of schools? FENDLEY: Let the witness answer. WALKER: That's what I'm asking, do you know if she did that? A. I know that Success For All was taken out of some schools because it was not effective. Q. All right. Now have you seen any written evaluation from anybody including Dr. Lesley to the effect that Success For All was not effective in a particular school, a written eval--- A. Yes. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box f4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. Where are those evaluations now and when--A. Well, it's not--- Q. when can I see them? 31 A. it is the result of tests that were given the students and their academic achievement. Q. Let me ask you my question. You understand Mrs. Magness, you told me you were a college graduate too, so nobody here can say that they don\"t understand questions. A written evaluation is an evaluation that I can put finger on and see. Is there a written evaluation which determined from the PRE Department that determine that Success For All was not a working program? A. Well, I don\"t know what you're looking for in a written evaluation Mr. Walker what, what components do you want to be there? What do you want it to look like? Q. Mrs. Magness, first of all have you seem such a written evaluation, that's all\ni f so I'd like to see it. But have you seen such an evaluation? A. I told you that I have seen the test results--- Q. I'm not asking about the test results, I'm talking wri--A. That's all I've seen on them. Q. Now you understand an evaluation is more than test results don't you? A. So eliminating--Q. No, no, no--- A. the disparity gap--- cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 32 Q. no, no, no, now lis--- A. would be more than just test scores? Q. listen. Do you understand that you as a board set up and approved an evaluation model and format? A. umm, yes. Q. I see. Do you expect evaluations to be made pursuant to that model and format? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever seen an evaluation of Success For All pursuant to that format? A. No. Q. I see. A. But that has never been one of the ones on our agenda specifically. Q. Well, you listed--- A. Now the evaluation will be of like what was the achievement of students in reading K-3. Q. Well, what were--- A. that program will be involved in trying to raise those achievement levels. Q. Well can you tell me what is on the agenda for complying with 2.71 by board motion, by board motion--- A. Uh-huh. Q. can you tell me which programs are there? A. The ones that were evaluated last year--cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 , 25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. National Science, Early Literacy, and Middle School? A. And English as a second language and quite frankly I've forgotten what we put down for this year. Q. Well, I don\"t see National Science being evaluated here. FENDLEY: You're not looking. 33 WALKER: I see that you said--you indicated that it was evaluated sufficiently to make a judgment so I determined that wasn\"t an evaluation\nso am I wrong about that? A. It was an evaluation. Q. All right, that's fine. A. It was that we had other questions and it was to be ah, looked at again, our questions answered and brought back. Q. So that the evaluation was incomplete? A. Right. Q. So you\"re saying that you're going to rest on an incomplete evaluation as an evaluation in compliance with 2.71? A. I'm going to say that for me I will accept that for this last year but because it is not what I think it should be, I will not accept it further. Q. Now show me anywhere on here where you have applied, where you have evaluated the Early Literacy program? A. Ah, right here. Q. You prepared the initial components of evaluation for pre-k through literacy. That means that you set an agenda doesn\"t it? It doesn\"t mean that you have made an evaluation does it Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164- 0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY Mrs. ah--- A. I have seen an evaluation of that. Q. Well, what is it called and who has it? FENDLAND: You've got it. SPRINGER: No we don't. 34 WALKER: Well, that's fine. Is that what you've referred to as the draft Mrs. Magness? A. Ah, the one I saw was a draft, yes. SPRINGER: Thank you. Q. I see. Well, you don\"t call a draft an evaluation do you? A. I call it a draft evaluation Mr. Walker, what would you want me to call it\na draft funny word sheet? Q. Well, have you seen any final evaluation of any of the programs contemplated under 2.7 or 71, a final evaluation of any--- A. Not, not a final evaluation of specific programs. Have I seen the result of the achievement increased and achievement results of those\nyes. Q. Have you been informed by Dr. Lesley that the evaluation by Dr. Nunnery that is referred to here on page 148 was an incompetent evaluation? A. Nope. Q. Did you consider his evaluation to be competent? A. I haven't seen it. Q. Have you any--- cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY A. Unless his, unless he, I mean, he was, I think he was involved in the draft versions that we saw. Q. I see. Are you a friend of Dr. Lesley's? A. Yes. Q. I see. Do you spend a lot of time with her? A. No. Q. Do you spend a lot of time in receiving her e-mails? A. No. Q. Do you receive any e-mails from her? A. I\"ve received one or two. Q. Do you send her e-mails? A. I've responded to one. Q. I see. WALKER: Mr. Fendley can we have those? MAGNESS: You should have it. WALKER: Not from Mrs. Magness. 35 FENDLEY: If they\"re still available\nwe'll see. MAGNESS: I doubt if they are, I delete mine regularly. WALKER: Well, we know there is a deletion program, are you familiar with the administrative regulation on deletion of e-mails? A. Huh-uh. FENDLEY: No. Q. Did you know that one had been promulgated by the Cobb Court Reporting P, 0, Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 36 superintendent saying that to keep these jokers for two weeks and then they're to be eliminated? FENDLEY: That's a paraphrase. WALKER: Fifteen days and they\"re supposed to be moved off. A. I think that's a good practice. Isn't that what they do in business? Q. No, ma'am. Are you familiar with the fact that the court has said that when you eliminate these--are you familiar with the court saying that if you have eliminated them after the request has been made--- A. Uh-huh. Q. She will construe ah, she will, she will determine an adverse inference upon that fact? Now do you know what an adverse inference is? A. No. Q. An adverse inference I would take would be--the inference is that the information deleted would be helpful to the person seeking it. A. Uh. Oh, if I've got them I mean I, you know--Q. You've got them, that's fine. A. No, I said if I have them you're more than welcome to'em. Q. All right. Now I understand that you and Mr. ah, Dr. Darty have a material disagreement over the accomplishments of the school district with respect to remediation, is that fair to Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 37 say? A. I don\"t know. Q. Did you not take issue with his statement at the school board meeting last week or week before last? A. Urnrn, I took--not, no. Q. You did not, that's fine. A. No. Q. Do you believe that the achievement gap that exist in the Little Rock School District between black and white students can be eliminated? A. I believe that--- Q. That's a yes or no\nI don't want an explanation now. FENDLEY: Let me, I'll object then because you didn\"t put any sort of time frame on there. Q. I just asked you if you believe that it can be eliminated\nthat's yes or no. FENDLEY: Ever? WALKER: Mr., please don\"t try to influence my answer. Q. Do you believe it can be eliminated? A. Well, I'll ask, in what time frame? Q. See you suggested--- A. So a little more. Q. No, no. Do you believe that the achievement gap can be eliminated by the Little Rock School District? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 38 A. Yes. Q. I see. Now I'll ask you the question, over what time frame will it take at the minimum? A. I don\"t know. Q. Will it take 12 years? A. I\"m not going to put a time on it. Q. I see. But you do acknowledge that there has to be if that as a goal before you can begin to address the subject, elimination? A. I am not as concerned about looking at that--Q. Mrs. Magness listen to the question--- A. if I am seeing that--- Q. I\"m not asking about your concerns--A. every--- Q. I'm only concerned about you--A. student does--- FENDLEY: Let her--WALKER: No--- A. to the best--- FENDLEY: finish her answer. WALKER: I'm only concerned that you answer my question. A. that that student can do. WALKER: I'm only--- REPORTER: One at a time, please. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 39 Q. I'm only concerned about your answer to my question. This is not a lawsuit about getting every student to do what, the best he can\nyou understand that don't you? A. No. Q. Is it your understanding that this lawsuit is about getting every student to be able to do the best he can\nis that your understanding? A. That the lawsuit is about every student achieving high academic--- Q. So that's your belief? You understand in the world Mrs. Magness that not every student can be a high achiever academically\nyou understand that don't you? White and black students and not everyone can be a high achiever? A. No, but they can do--I want them to be able to--Q. Mrs., Mrs--- A. achieve the most they can. Q. But there is not way for determining what a person's limits are is there? There\"s no way for you to determine that. A. No. Q. So the point here is and you understand that the law requires that students who have been the victim of discrimination be the ones who are the target of remediation. They're the ones who are owed the remedy\nyou know that don't you? A. Say that again. Cobb Court Reporting P, o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. Upon the finding of discrimination---A. Uh-huh. 40 Q. and there is a class defined, you then have what's called victims of discrimination. And the remedy has to apply to the victims, you understand that do you not? A. Yes. Q. I see. Now the remedy has to be specifically applied to the interest of black children here, do you understand that? A. Uh-huh. Q. And not white children. FENDLEY: You need to say yes or no. MAGNESS: Right, okay. FENDLEY: I mean that\"s for the record, she can\"t get uh-huh or huh-uh. MAGNESS: Wait, I\"m sorry. A. Say that last one again. Q. The remedy goes to black children not to white children. A. Right. Q. All right. Now are there any programs that you know of including middle school, early literacy and National Science that goes specifically to remediating the academic achievement disparities that black students suffer? A. Yes, all those. Q. What is the intended incremental remediation of black student deficiency on an annual basis expected by this school Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 CERTIFIED COPY 41 district? A. Explain that a little more. FENDLEY: Do you need to turn your tape over. Q. we understand that students, Mrs. Magness we understand if you have students in 30 percentile and white in the 60 that the goal is not to move the whites up but it's to move the blacks up\ndo you accept that premise? REPORTER: One moment. You may continue. Do you accept that premise, that was his last words. A. Ah, say it again one more time. Q. Do you accept that where the white students are already beyond the national norm, the 60 percentile or above in general and the blacks are way below say in the 30 percent, that the goal is to move the blacks, the black students, the AfricanAmerican students closer to the white students? A. I accept that as a goal. Q. Fine. And isn't it true that your plans and programs have to be focus upon doing that? A. Yes. Q. All right. And it's not to be trying to get these white students as far as they can go? A. I think we can do both. Q. Now the focus of the law, the requirement of the lawsuit is to remediate the underachievement of blacks students isn't it? A. It is to increase--- cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 42 Q. Can you say yes or no to that? A. No. Q. You can't, that's fine. I want you to say no because you don't believe it\nI understand where you're--- FENDLEY: Well, she didn't say she didn't believe that. WALKER: Well, your belief is--A. I did not say I didn't believe that. Q. Your belief has been stated many times Mrs. Magness is we're here committed to teach all children and get them as far as they can go\nthat's your position. A. That's right. Q. All right. And that means doesn't it Mrs. Magness that it's not upon dealing with the lowest achievement group? A. Yes, it is dealing with the lowest achievement group. Q. All right. You saw your report which said what has happened in the district is this: There are some modest black gains and there are some gains for whites but nonetheless the gap is not changing yet. But what is happening is that the poorest white students are suffering while black students are gaining\nyou did not see that report? A. No. Q. All right. The gains have come, for white kids have at the expense of poor white kids, have you seen that? A. No. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. You understand that when black students don\"t learn poor white kids don\"t learn either? 43 A. When any student does not learn any group of students in a classroom do not learn then I would say most of them are not in that classroom. Q. The evidence is that white students continue to learn and improve, your own record shows--- A. So are you saying that our black kids are not smart enough to do that? Q. The record shows here that your focus is upon improving the education of all students, so your teachers work with those students they're most comfortable with. A. I disagree. FENDLEY: Object as to form. Q. All right, you may disagree. All right, well then how can you--when you say Mrs. Magness that it\"s easier to get a group of students in a lower percentile, say 20 to 30 percentile up 15 or 20 points then it would be to get a student in the 60th or 70th percentile up 10 or 15 points? A. I would say it would depend on the age of the student and the grade level. Q. Mrs. Magness just it's a matter of reasoning the person--A. Uh-huh. Q. whose got the furthest to go has the possibility of making the greatest gain\nisn't that correct? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box H sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 44 A. Has the possibility, yes. Q. I see. But in this district over the years the only gains on the SAT anyway are reflected for white students. A. I disagree. Q. Can you tell me any time in the last four years when that was not reflected? A. No, I cannot. Q. So in the last four years you acknowledge that those--- A. No, I don't know. Q. Have you looked at the SAT results? A. Yes, but I have not--I don't remember comparing them. Q. Have you heard Dr. Lesley say that the achievement disparity in lower grades, I think second or third grade pre-k through 3 has been eliminated? A. No, not eliminated. Q. Have you heard her say that it's to the point where it statistically inconsequential? A. No--- Q. I see. A. I don't remember her saying that. Q. I see. A. I know that we, that our programs that we have put in there have improved the achievement level of all the students. Q. Mrs. Magness can you explain why the predominantly black schools do not have lower class sizes then the mixed schools? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY A. I don't know whether they do or not. Q. You haven't seen your own report? A. I hav--I don't remember reading the report that said the size of the classrooms. Q. Do you recall previously testifying that it was contemplated that there would be smaller classes for those children who were in the most disadvantaged circumstances? A. I\"ve never testified before. Q. You've never given a deposition before? A. No. FENDLEY: In this case? MAGNESS: Not in this case. Q. Well, maybe it's at the school board meeting. Have you ever taken that position publicly? A. Okay, say it again. 45 Q. That the children in the most disadvantaged circumstances needed to have the lower pupil/teacher ratios? A. I don\"t remember saying that. Q. Do you believe that? A. I believe--well, if I had all the money in the world and could design the school, I would make all pre-K through second at least 1 to 15. Q. Mrs. Magness if you have a group of--you understand when children come to school they come there as a reflection of their environment? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] Q. Is that right? REPORTER: Answer verbally. A. Oh--- Q. You said oh, and she was nodding yes. A. Yes, yes\nI was thinking on that. 46 Q. Now you understand that the children from Mr. Rose\"s and Mrs. Strickland's area who come to school score lower, white children from their area score lower than the children who come from your area? A. I wouldn\"t agree to that. Q. Would you not agree that the children whom they represent who are white are generally as a group of lower socioeconomic status compared to your children, the kids in yours? A. No. Q. Are you familiar with the census tracks which show the relative socioeconomic status of students? A. No, I have not\nI don't remember seeing that. Q. Do you believe that the children in southwest Little Rock, the white students in southwest Little Rock have the same socioeconomic status as the ones in your census track? A. Some of them. Q. Well now we know that there are some blacks who do and there are some whites--- A. Uh-huh. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 47 Q. but we\"re talking about groupings. would you think--- A. So now you\"re talking about all of southwest Little Rock? Q. No, no, I\"m just saying the census tracks there. Would you not agree Mrs. Magness that if you were dealing with only white students and you didn't have a black student around and you had poor kids who happened to be white irrespective of where they lived but they lived in groups and you had schools for them and you had middle class to rich kids and you had schools for them, wouldn\"t you feel that those students from the lower group would have lower test scores on standardize test when they entered school than the ones in the well-to-do group? A. When they entered school? Q. Yes, ma' am. A. Yes. Q. And would not those test score disparities remain throughout absent int ervention by the school district? A. I don\"t know that. Q. All right. But at least if you recognize it the goal is to get these students up to the same level as it is the other students isn\"t it? A. Uh-huh. Q. All right. Which means then the teachers over here with these students have more work to do in order to move them ahead at a comparable, so they can be at a comparable level than the students over here? Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box i4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY A. I don't know that. Q. Is not that reasonable Mrs. Magness? A. I don't know. Q. So then why do we talk about socioeconomic status if socioeconomic status doesn't mean anything? One of your arguments to me have been this is all attributed to socioeconomic standards. A. No, I did not say that. Q. Did you not indicate at the board meeting that the differences in achievement were due to socioeconomic status? A. No. Q. Did you hear Dr. Lesley say that? A. No. Q. Did she not say anything even comparable to that? A. Socioeconomic status was discussed. 48 Q. All right, that's fine. Doesn't it stand to reason if you got a group of kids over here who can't really read and don't have worldly experiences and don't have two-parent families and support systems that the teachers are going to have to work more with them than a group of differently situated students over here? A. I don't know. Q. Can you honestly say you don't know Mrs. Magness? A. I can honestly say that. Q. I see. Did you agree years ago to double funding? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY A. No, I was not in on that decision. Q. Do you support double funding now? A. Umm, I'm supporting it because I have agreed to it with this plan. Q. But do you support it conceptually? 49 A. Conceptually I support putting the money and the resources where they're needed the most. Q. Well, go back to my hypothetical. A. Okay. Q. The students over here start out lower and they're all white [indicating with right hand]. A. Okay. If, well, it doesn't matter to me--- Q. The students over here [indicating with left hand]--A. what color these kids are--- Q. so my point is--- A. or what their background is--Q. but I'm saying--- A. what I want Mr. Walker--- Q. just a moment, listen to my question\nlet me finish. My question is a nonracial hypothetical\nso race isn't an issue now. You got poor kids over here [indicating with right hand] who are white and you\"ve got rich kids over here [indicating with left hand] and the white kids are behind over here [motioning with right hand] and these are at National norms or about [indicating with left hand]. Where did put in my Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 50 hypothetical--- FENDLAND: Just for the record Mr. Walker, you\"re not going to be able to see which hand you're point to. WALKER: Well now, one hand, other hand. Q. Now do you devote more resources to the underachievers or to the high achievers? A. You devote the resources wherever they're needed. If the underachievers need the resources because the way that their school is structured and the way their teachers are teaching, need more resources then yes, that's where they go. Q. Listen to my question. A. You also have to be sure that you have the necessary resources that will meet the needs of these kids. Q. But now in the hypothetical you would acknowledge that the need is greatest to bring these kids up over there [indicating with right hand]? A. The need is the greatest there. Q. So that means you should put more resources--- FENDLEY: For the poor kids is what you\"re--A. For the poor kids. Q. Yes. So you should put more resources in the area where the poor children are, isn't that correct? A. Again Mr. Walker it depends--- Q. Under your hypothetical. A. it depends on how those, how that is going to be addressed, Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 51 what is going to be done to bring those kids up, to raise their achievement levels. Q. Well, the need--- A. And if it requires more money and more resources, yes. Q. Well, do you not feel that it's going to necessarily require more resources when the children are poorer? A. It may. Q. All right. Now let's just talk about reality for a moment. Now I\"ve spoken to Mrs. Strickland about this and I don't know whether she's backing away from it but you look at McClellan and, McClellan especially and Mabelvale and Cloverdale and you compare those facilities with Central or Parkview, you acknowledge that McClellan is not the equal physically don't you of Parkview and Central? A. In what way? Q. The physical facilities. Even the appearance of the thing, the interior of the building, I mean you acknowledge that don't you? A. Well no. Q. That's fine. A. I would say McClellan and, you know, probably doesn't look any worse than Central. Now Parkview is newer so, you know, it looks better. Q. I see. Now would you not acknowledge that in general the schools of the southwest are not equal to the schools in the Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 52 west? A. No. Q. I see. would you not acknowledge that the teacher turnover in the schools in the southwest is greater than it is in the schools in the west? A. I don\"t know that. Q. Do you not acknowledge that the educational need for educational achievement is different in the southwest than it is in the west? A. In what ways? Q. Well, they, you have more underachieving students as determined by standardize test in the southwest than you do in the west. A. Now when you\"re saying west what, what are you--- Q. I'm saying Pulaski Heights, that northwest, Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Parkview, those schools as over against Coverdale and Mabelvale. A. And the question was? Q. You know, just the achievement level of students? A. I'm trying to remember. Now Parkview I think we should take out since it is a magnets but--- Q. Let\"s, just assume, just assume for my instance, you can deal with assumption\nlet's assume that that's for real. If you're trying to get all students to more or less the same achievement level, you put the resources in the area do you not Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY where the deficiencies are evident don't you? A. I would think so\nyes. 53 Q. That means then that you should have instead of equal resources in all schools, you should have greater resources in some schools than others doesn't it? A. And as I recall--- Q. Doesn't that mean that, yes or no? A. this says equitable. Q. Well, we're talking about resources here. Now if we know the schools in the southwest are deficient in terms of what they can do, in terms of money, you don't try to have an equal thing across the board do you? A. I don't know that I would agree with the deficient. Q. I see, I see. I don't need to have any further--I think that ah, I just have one or two more questions\njust a moment. [A recess was taken at 2:08 p.m., proceedings resumed at 2:09 p.m., to-wit:] REPORTER: We are on the record, sir and you may continue. DIRECT EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Walker Con't: Q. Did the board ever publicly discuss the issue before Dr. Carnine began approaching the State Department of Education about loan forgiveness or the subject of loan forgiveness? A. Okay, say the first of that again. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 54 Q. Did the board--let me change that question. Did the board ever authorize Dr. Corinine to approach the State Department of Education about loan forgiveness of the 20 million dollar loan\ndid they do that by a motion? A. I don't remember. Q. Did you, did the board ever make an evaluation of whether it had remediated any portion of the achievement disparity that it committed to the State of Arkansas that it would eliminate? A. You\"re going to have to go further on that. FENDLEY: Object to the form of the question. Q. Was any elimination in the disparity gap known to the board as of January 2001 as evidence by a writing the board had before it? A. Umm, as in a formal document? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. No. Q. All right. Did Dr. Corinine in a public meeting ever inform you that he was meeting with me with respect to loan forgiveness during the meetings that he was having with the State Department of Education on that subject? A. Not that I remember. Q. Did you feel that you all were committed to the agreement with the state to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students to the extent of 10 percent? A. Say that again? Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box t4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 55 Q. Did you feel that the board was committed to fulfill its agreement with the state to remediate achievement disparities as provided--- A. So now I can tell you if I feel the board was and read their minds? Q. No, I\"m asking did the board ever have, let's read the, I'm not asking you--what's the question? FENDLEY: It's exactly--- WALKER: Let's take the question. Q. Did the board ever commit to the state that it would remediate achievement disparity, I'm going to do it in three steps, did it ever do that? A. Ah, that was part of the agreement--Q. That's right. A. in '89. Q. All right now what steps did the board take to comply with that\nto do that what steps did it take to comply with that? FENDLEY: Wel l, let me just object as to form because that assumes--- MAGNESS: Right. FENDLEY: ah, since a standard was never decided under that test, we could have met that standard in 1989. Q. My question now--- FENDLEY: So there wouldn\"t be any ah, issue of remedying anything. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box i4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (50 1 ) 490 - 0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 CERTIFIED COPY 56 WALKER: Well, that's an argument for me counsel that he has not been successful on and the judge told him that the other day when you weren\"t in court. FENDLEY: Well, I'll object to that, that's not true. WALKER: She told you, he told him in no uncertain terms when you weren't in court that she wasn\"t buying that you all did not have a duty to eliminate or remediate achievement disparities and he can get the transcript and see it. Q. You haven't been told that have you? A. John, we're all trying to eliminate and remediate the disparity score, we're all trying. Q. I haven't heard you, I haven\"t heard you say one thing that leads me to believe that you are. Your notion is that you education the children and they learn if they want to and you're teaching all children. FENDLEY: Object, that's argue--Q. That's what I've heard. FENDLEY: you're just arguing with the witness. Q. Now I'm asking you did you have a commitment to the board to do that, to the State Board of Education to eliminate disparity? A. The board in '89 made that commitment. Q. All right. Did the board, any subsequent board which you Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 were on--- A. We did not, we--- Q. back away, back away--A. no. CERTIFIED COPY Q. All right. Is that still the commitment? 57 A. It is still, as far as I know, nothing has changed\nit is still the board's commitment to eliminate the disparity between the races. Q. In achievement? A. Yes. Q. I see. What is the timetable that the board has for eliminating--- A. We do not have--Q. the disparity? A. a timetable. Q. So it could take a thousand years? A. It could. Q. That's good. Did Dr. Corinine ever tell you that it was contemplated that the Joshua Intervenors would have a role before matters got to you in the development of policies, programs, and procedures with respect to the revised desegregation plan? A. Okay, say your first part again? Q. Did he tell you that before things came to the board for approval--- cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 58 A. Uh-huh. Q. that the Joshua Intervenors would have a role in the development of programs, policies, and procedures? A. Not in those specific words. Q. In any words did he tell you that? A. It was my understanding that it would be ah, a cooperative effort and that I am, you would receive as much information as we could possibly get to you and that and, you know, we were going to work on this together. Q. Now what was your source of that information Mrs. Magness? A. Well, this whole document. Q. That's fine. were you informed by Dr. Corinine that we were being so involved? A. That was my understanding. Q. Did you receive, were you aware of a statement that we made--were you aware of the statement that I made before the board that I refer to on July 22, 1999 that we were not being involved in the planning\ndo you recall me--let me just draw my attention to this right here. In bullet number 4 down here, this is response #2 and #17 to your answers to interrogatories. The four little squares is what I'm referring to. A. I know, I just wanted to read the rest of it. Q. I don't want you to read the rest of it right now, I'll give you a copy of it and you have, we have given all of these to your lawyer so if they want to share it with you they can. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 59 But do you recall me appearing before the board and telling you in 1999 that we were not being involved? A. I'm trying to remember if I was at that board meeting. Q. That's fine. Well, the minutes will reflect but you don't recall it right now do you? A. Not at this moment. Q. I'll take that back then and Mr. Fendley, I would appreciate if you would ask him to share all these answers to interrogatories with you all. A. Which bullet were you talking about on here? Q. The fourth down that's square, down at the bottom. A. Oh, on the very bottom. Q. It says that the Joshua Intervenors were not being involved. A. Well, am I missing it. Q. If you will show to me and I'll show it to you what I'm talking about. A. Oh, okay, just that one little sentence. Q. Yes, ma'am. Well, there were several others. \"We all agree that Dr. Roberts role was to be more significant and had not been significant.\" Well, I won't go--you just don't have a recollection of that and that's understandable. Were you informed that the Joshua Intervenors were go be involved in the compliance program and trying to see to it that things worked? A. In what ways? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 60 Q. Based on your understanding from Corinine or anybody in 1999, did you have an impression as to the role of the Joshua Intervenors with respect to help and to work things out? A. umm, yes, that--- Q. All right. A. yeah. Q. All right. Now was it your understanding that there were Compliance Committee meetings going on throughout this period? A. That's right. Q. Were you aware that the Joshua Intervenors sought to be involved in those meetings? A. Yes. Q. Were you aware that we were denied that privilege? A. Yes. Q. What would be the reason for keeping Joshua out of those compliance meetings when the purpose of the plan was for us to work together? A. Because that was an internal working committee--Q. That's fine. A. that needed to work through problems and offer, and come up with solutions and then at that point I would think would be the time your involvement would be needed. Q. I see. But you were aware that Mr. Fendley was involved in those meetings were you? A. Yes. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 61 Q. I see. What was it--- A. Well, not all of them I don't think was he--I don't know. Q. Well, didn't he have a role in that committee? A. I understood that he did attend, I don't know that he attended every one of them. Q. What was it that Mr. Fendley could contribute to that committee that even approach what I could contribute to it? A. [Laughing]. Q. I'm talking about I'm another party, we're trying to work things our--- A. Uh-huh. Q. he's simply the lawyer and the understanding was that we are trying to work these things out so that when they come to the board that can become a beta comply and if there are difference at that time we'll bring them to the attention of the board so the board can make the judgment, what was wrong with that approach? A. It was nothing wrong with that approach and it should have been done but I still didn't feel like that you should be sitting in on the compliance meetings. Q. That's fine. A. I mean if you want to work on things for the districts and programs and things we can do at your office and we'll be glad to come down and sit in on it. Q. Were you aware that we did it, that we were involved in a Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box t4 sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 62 number of the committees of the board? A. Yes. Q. Well why, if we can be involved in helping to deal with then handbook--- A. Uh-huh. Q. and with the Research Committee--A. Uh-huh. Q. other things, what made compliance, those were compliance issues, what made compliance off limits? A. It was not off limits. The committee which was made up of the, as I understand it, the senior administrators whose responsibility was to see that this program was done. It was their meeting to discuss with, you know, among themselves, be sure that communication was going back and forth from all the different divisions, being sure that we were doing this the best we could and then, I mean we weren't in on any of those either, board members were not\nnobody was in on those. Q. Did you expect that the superintendent would be involve? A. He would have to be kept up to speed on it. Q. I see. So you're letting three or four people talk about, and Mr. Fendley talk about compliance issues and then maybe you would share some of those wi th us? Was there a party less integral to the whole process than the Joshua Intervenors? FENDLEY: Was there a party less integral? Q. Less integral to whole process than the Joshua--cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 63 A. What does that mean? Q. If you don\"t understand it then I'll go on. A. I don\"t understand, less integral. Q. integral. Did you ever receive any reports from the Compliance Committee? A. Yes. Q. In a public board meeting? A. Yes. Q. And they told you what they were doing? A. Yes. Q. So those ought to be reflected in the minutes? A. Well, let me back up to say that what were was getting was ah, reports our regular agendas about ah, Mr. Babbs would make a report and there were times when we would get reports from different of the associate or assistance, which was the second, the next one down as to what was being done in their division\nyes. Q. Now the only thing I recall those things being were statements by Mr. Babbs telling you that he had met with Dr. Roberts, he had picked him up at the airport or--- A. We heard from Dr. Roberts. Q. wait a minute, I'm talking about the compliance and that ah--- A. That's all part of it. Q. you had a meeting but nothing substantively ever appeared Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 64 on your agenda. Well, let me say if it did ah, we ought to be able to get it. So you're saying that you received reports from Mr. Babbs substantive in nature dealing with the Compliance Committee activities and I'm accepting that--- A. No, wait, wait, wait, wait--- Q. so I'm asking now Mr. Fendley--A. back up. Q. for copies of all those things. A. Hold it. SPRINGER: The minutes, we can get the minutes. A. I didn't, I did not say that. I said we got reports from the Compliance Committee, I didn't say it was about their activities. Q. Well, what else would it be now you\"re getting upon the stand--- A. Okay, it would be like policies and procedures and programs and test results and Dr. Roberts and different things that were going on within the district that were necessary and needed to help us to comply with what we have said we would do\nthat's what I meant Mr. walker. WALKER: All right. Then I would like to get Mr. Fendley, copies of all the reports that were sent by Mr. Babbs to the board members that had been to the board meetings regarding the Compliance Committee. MAGNESS: There are none regarding the Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 65 Compliance Committee. Q. Well Mrs. Magness, my question deal with what reports did you get from Mr. Babbs or anyone else regarding the Compliance Committee and its work. And you\"re telling me now that they sent various things to you and I just like to have a copy it, that's all. A. No, I did not say that. Q. Well, tell me again what you said. A. I said that we received in our regular board meetings much of the business that we conducted had to do with policies, procedures and programs that were put in place to comply with this report. And yes, we did receive and interim report and you have a copy of that and then we received a draft, and then we received a final report\nso yes, you have all those. Q. So that\"s all you say you received? A. That's all I can think of at the moment. Q. Did you ever ask him what his committee did to address the issue of remediation of achievement disparities? Did you ever ask him that question yourself? A. Not that specific question, no. Q. Did he ever give the board a report on what he and the committee had determine needed to be done in order to remediate the achievement disparities of African-American students? A. Did Mr. Babbs say that? Q. Yes, ma'am. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY 66 A. No. Q. All right. Now did anybody representing the Compliance Committee address that subject before the board? FENDLEY: When you say representing you mean on behalf of the--- WALKER: On behalf of--yes, yes. A. I don't think I understand that question. Q. Well, if Mr. Babbs wasn't there did someone else appear and give a Compliance Committee report? A. No. Q. Did Mr. Babbs ever tell you that there was an annual assessment as provided by 2.7 and 2.71 or all programs in the district? A. No. Q. Did anybody on the Compliance Committee ever address the issue of annual written assessment as contemplated by 2.7 and 2. 71? A. Not in specific relation to all programs. Q. That's right. A. No. Q. Did they ever provide a writing indicating that the Compliance Committee had made an assessment of any program and determined that it was not working? A. No. Q. Did they ever make an assessment of any program and Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFIED COPY determine that it was working? A. Q. A. The Compliance Committee? Yes, ma'am. No. WALKER: All right. No more question. FENDLEY: No questions. 67 [The deposition ended at 2:27 p.m., October 5, 2001.]  * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax \u0026lt;e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (- 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 CERTIFIED COPY 68 SIGNATURE PAGE I, JUDY MAGNESS, hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is a full, true, correct and complete transcript of the proceeding [mark the appropriate box]: ( ) had at the time of the taking of my deposition. (OR) (~ubject to the notations on the attached Errata Sheet made by me or at my Date STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI direction. Hffk~ ss. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notar!.(,Public in Notary Public MY COMMISSION (SEAL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 CERT\\F\\ED COPY 69 ERRATA SHEET (Upon completion, please sign and date this sheet below.) Page K Line _L Page ___:)_ Line JL Page~ Line 21_ Page :f5_ Line 2- Page _d!j_ Line.:\n._ Page P]_ Line _/3_ Page j_ Line ~ Page i3 Line i Page Line Page Line Page Line Page Line Change: To: c..a,11,, Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: does To: 0 Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: (t! tt'il) '\n, e. To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Date Cobb Court Reporting P , O. Box t 4 Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax Page I of I - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 CERTIFIED COPY 70 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, JUDY MAGNESS, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me in stenomask and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and abili ty. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requir es me to provide any service not available to all parties to the act. My Commiss i on Expires: January 16, 2007 Cobh Court Re porting P , o. Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1237","title":"Oral deposition of Larry Berkley","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2001-10-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","Court records","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Larry Berkley"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1237"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["58 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at the Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n   CERTIFIED COPY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF MR. LARRY BERKLEY DATE: October 5, 2001 TIME: 10:21 a.m. PLACE: The Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendants: Mr. John w. Walker, Attorney John w. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Clay Fendley, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 west Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, The John w. Walker Law Firm Tony Rose, Sue Strickland, \u0026amp; Katherine Mitchell, Deponents Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 2 CERTf Ff ED COPY PAGE AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL ..................... 3 SWEARING OF THE WITNESS. EXAMINATION OF MR. LARRY BERKLEY  .   . . .  . . . .    3 By Mr. Walker ..................... 3-38 SIGNATURE SHEET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 ERRATA SHEET. . . . . . . . . . . COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION .. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax . . . 41 . 42  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CE TIFIED COPY 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of Larry Berkley, produced, sworn and examined at the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm, 400 West Capitol, Suite #2200, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 commencing at 10:21 a.m., on October 5, 2001, in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition by witness, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G S THEREUPON, LARRY BERKLEY having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. Mr. Berkley, you have given depositions before have you Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 4 not? A. Yes. Q. I'll just go straight to the issue. How long have you been a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A. Five years. REPORTER: Both of you speak up a little bit, please. A. Okay. I've been on it five years. Q. Do you hold an office on the board? A. Not at this time. Q. Have you ever served as either president or vice president of the board? A. Both. Q. When were you president of the board? A. '98 I think. I'll have to go back and look at the records. Q. All right. A. Yes, okay. I'll lean forward. Q. Do you hold an office at that time? A. I do not. Q. What is your education? A. I have a Masters Degree in Physics from the University of Missouri and a bachelors degree and masters degree in physics. Q. What work do you do? A. I'm a medical physicist. I'm Vice President of Medical Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Physics and Engineering at CARTI. Q. I see. Is that with UAMS? 5 A. we have a facility at UAMS but CARTI in independent of all the facilities that we serve. Q. I see, all right. Mr. Berkley are you familiar with the revised desegregation and education plan? A. Yes. Q. Have you and the board members had occasion to, as a board in a public meeting, ever discuss that plan together as a board since 1998? A. we have received regular updates from administration and from the consultants and--- Q. I understand, my question though doctor, Mr. Berkley, have you and the other board members in a public session ever had occasion to discuss that in a public setting? FENDLEY: I'm going to object to the--Q. Not simply to receive reports. A. Well, in conjunction with receiving those reports and I believe there was some discussion related to the management study that we had done that related to the deseg plan. Q. Have you had occasion to receive information that, from you lawyers in a public session regarding the revised desegregation and education plan in so far as its implementation was concerned? I'm talking about in a public meeting instead of one-on-one? Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 6 A. I believe there have been updates from them. Q. In a public meeting? A. I honestly can\"t recall that. Q. Have you and the board members before today ever met with the lawyers privately regarding the revised desegregation and education plan? A. Privately? Q. Yes, sir. FENDLEY: Do you mean independently or together? WALKER: Two persons at one time at any time or more. A. I do not recall doing that. Q. I see. Has it been your practice as a board that whenever two board members met that you would give notice to the press of that meeting? A. Ah, it is our practice yes. Q. I see. Has it been your practice that you would do that even if it were for something as mondain as lunch? A. As a general rule, yes\nthere may have been exceptions to that. Q. I see. Do you know under the Freedom Of Information Act the only exception is to discuss personnel matters? FENDLEY: Object as to form. Q. You may answer. A. I believe that there is some, one interpretation of that Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 7 that says that. Q. Mr. Berkley do you recall being informed by Dr. Les Carnine that the district had substantially complied with the expectation of the revised desegregation and education plan? A. Yes. Q. When did he do that? A. I can\"t give you a date. Q. All right. Did he do it over a period of time? A. We have had regular reports from the administration particularly Mr. Babbs ah, that's a regular part of our meetings. Q. Well, I understand that. Did Mr. Babbs or anyone else inform you and the other board members in a public session and all my questions will be about public sessions because I presume you all cannot act in private? A. That's correct. Q. That the requirements of the revised desegregation and education plan had been fulfilled? A. I don't recall the exact words but I think substantial compliance is the corrects words. Q. Okay. Do you recall that I've appeared before the board on several occasions to complain that the plan requirements were not being met? A. You? Q. Yes, sir. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 44 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY a A. I remember you coming to the board concerned about ah, a position be potentially eliminated as a result of the management plan that we had done. Q. Is that all you recall about that meeting? A. Yes. Q. I see. We have prepared responses to your counsel's interrogatories. Have you seen the interrogatories which were prepared by your counsel and submitted to the Joshua Intervenors? BERKLEY: umrn, have I seen it? REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. FENDLEY: I don't think you have. A. No. Q. I want to show--- FENDLEY: I\"m not suppose to answer, if you don't recall--- BERKLEY: I don\"t recall, I don\"t recall seeing them. Q. I see. In order to refresh your memory about that meeting I give you a response to those interrogatories, Response #2 to Interrogatory #7, this is the response to interrogatory #2 and #17. And this purports to be a tape, \"tape of John Walker before LRSD School Board July 22, 1999\", that was prepared by the secretary of the district. Would you look at that and see, it's four pages, would you look at that for a moment and see if Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 9 it refreshes your recollection. A. This is something at King School? Q. Just look at it and see if it refreshes your recollection. FENDLEY: Do you want him to read it all? WALKER: No, just, just--- FENDLEY: Well, what do you want him to do with it? WALKER: Well, if he want's to, he can read it if he wishes. I presume he reads fast, he's a physicist. FENDLEY: He can read it at whatever pace he pleases. A. I do recall you coming to the board with concerns--- Q. No, my question was does that refresh your recollection? A. About ah, you coming to the board another time about some concerns at Hall High. Q. Did this refresh your recollection about complaints that we were making regarding implementation as early as July 22, 1999\ndoes this refresh your recollection? A. No. Q. That's fine. Now did you ever--you were the president during that year weren't you? A. I can look and see. Q. '99 to 2000? A. August '99, that would have been '98, '99? Q. Well, this was July. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 10 A. July '99 I would have been president. Q. Yes, sir. A. That's right. Q. All right. Now do you remember as president of the board ever asking Dr. Carnine or any administrator to respond to the comments that I had made after giving them thoughtful consideration on July 22, 1999? A. No. Q. Do you recall any board member ever asking the administration to give any response to the board to any of the comments that I've made regarding criticisms with implementations of the desegregation plan? Any written, anything to the board members or any staff members regarding those things? FENDLEY: I'm going to object, I'm not sure I understand the question. WALKER: Well, let me make sure you understand. Q. Now usually when people appear before the board unless it's a matter where some person has a particular comment to be made, you all generally say nothing\nisn't that generally what happens? A. When the public comes before the board? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. All right. Now isn't it also fair to say that when I have Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72 164-000 4 Pho ne : (50 1 ) 490 - 00 66 (50 1 ) 490 -0 92 6 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY appeared before the board most of the board members have basically been silent. A. I wouldn't--- Q. That's fine. A. make a statement like that. 11 Q. Have you all, when I've come before the board especially in July and made these kinds of complaints about nonimplementation, is it fair to say that you did not ask Dr. Carnine or any other administrator to give a response to these considerations at that time? A. I can't speak for the other board members. Q. But you didn't did you? A. I did not\nno, sir. Q. All right. Now do you know of any official action being taken with respect to the remarks made by the Joshua Intervenors, myself, or Mrs. Springer at any time as a board? A. As a board? Q. Yes, as a board. A. And official action by the board--Q. Yes, sir\nyes, sir--- A. in response to your request? Q. Yes, sir. FENDLEY: And let me just clarify, a request made to the board at a meeting? WALKER: Or comments, yes. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 12 FENDLEY: So you\"re talking about at a meeting? WALKER: At a meeting, any public session\nyes. A. I do not recall any official action by the board. Q. I see. Now do you recall that we have consistently told you that the plan required the involvement of Drs. Roberts and Ross in the divination and promulgation of policies, programs, and procedures as contemplated by the revised desegregation plan? A. I remember reading your words about your interpretation of the plan that you should be involved with that. Q. Well, what about the, you do not recall me having said on the 22nd that ors. Roberts and Ross would be integrally involved and there was an understanding that these two persons would have a role in planning, development and divination of new policies, programs, and procedures for moving us beyond where we were into where we wanted to be\nyou don\"t recall that? A. I don\"t recall that but it does make sense. Q. Pardon? A. It does make sense. Q. It does? A. Yes. Q. I see. Now have you had a report from anyone setting forth whether or not Dr. Roberts was involved in the establishment of policies, programs and procedures regarding the revised Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 13 desegregation plan, did anybody tell you that he was involved? A. No, sir but I will say this: I asked Dr. Roberts in a public meeting and at least one occasion, I think more than one occasion whether he had any concerns about our compliance with the plan and he said no. Q. Well, did you ask him whether he was involved? A. Well, I would assume that that would part of compliance. Q. Well, did he have, what was his role, what was your understanding if his role with respect to developing policies, programs, and procedures by which to implement the desegregation plan\nwhat was your understand was his role, not whether or not he had some concerns? A. My understanding was that he was an individual that you had approved and that the administration and you and he would decide what was appropriate. Q. That's fine. That was your clear understanding wasn't it? A. I can't tell you details about what his involvement should be or should have been but he is an individual who you approved and we agreed would be a good person to take on that task and during the course of those years except for these ah, few exceptions that you\"re referring to, we didn't hear much from you. Q. Is it your belief that you didn\"t hear much from me? Did you not get numerous--- A. We had public meetings twice a month for three years. Cobb Court Reporting p , o . Box H Sweet Horne , AR 7216 4-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 14 Q. Did you not receive reports from Dr. Carnine that he was meeting with me from time-to-time? A. Oh, yes. Q. So would you not have been hearing from me in that way? Let me go on to something else. Did you get the impression that Dr. Carnine was an honest and candid man? A. Yes. Q. Did you get the impression that he was giving you full reports regarding and accurate reports regarding implementation of the plan? A. He had delegated that primarily to Mr. Babbs. Q. I see. Did you get the impression that Mr. Babbs was a knowledgeable and competent person that could perform the task that you all assigned him? A. Yes. Q. I see. Were you in court when his testimony was given after ah, in July? A. I was not. Q. I suppose you read his testimony? A. I have not. Q. Has anyone given you an appraisal of his testimony or a summary of his testimony regarding program implementation? A. No official. Q. I see. Anybody unofficially? A. Ah, I wouldn\"t want to say that. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 15 Q. I see. Now the plan calls for, does it not call for remediation of achievement disparities between African-American and none African-American students? A. The revised desegregation plan? Q. Yes, sir\nyes, sir. A. I think it refers to attempts to do that. Q. I see, that's fine. Is it your position that you all did not commit to address elimination of the disparity between black and white achievement? FENDLAND: I'm going to object to the form--WALKER: You can still answer. FENDLAND: in that it did not address that, we committed to--- WALKER: I notice Mrs. Magness shaking her head while your deposition is being given, so that's fine\nshe can do that. A. we ah--- Q. or is it your position, you've heard her statement--FENDLAND: I'll note for the record that he can't see Mrs. Magness, she's sitting behind me. WALKER: I saw Mrs. Magness shaking her head like this--- FENDLAND: Well now, that doesn't matter. Q. Well now you heard Mrs. Magness' statement, I'll just change the question, you heard Mrs. Magness' statement in ah, Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 16 the public meeting the other night when Dr. Darty made his comments and when Mr. Curris made his comments--- A. Uh-huh. Q. that the plan did not require elimination or addressing African-American achievement disparities\nyou heard that didn't you? FENDLAND: Let me--- A. Is this my testimony of Mrs. Magness? Q. Did you hear her, did you--- FENDLAND: Let me object to the form of the question, please. You asked address, you asked two questions. WALKER: I'll change it but before I ask this question do you all plan to make the e-mails available after March 15th? FENDLAND: In accordance with the court's order. WALKER: After March 15th? FENDLAND: We'll let you know that sometime today. WALKER: I may have to then, continue these depositions after today because I don\"t want to go into things that are not, the court's not going to let us address and she said that you couldn't have it both ways. FENDLAND: I understand. WALKER: All right. FENDLAND: And I don't mind telling you more Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 11 than likely we're going to go with her option 2. them in? WALKER: Which is to let them in? Not to let FENDLAND: Not, not--WALKER: That's fine. FENDLAND: no e-mails after March 15th. WALKER: That's fine. Q. Now you\"re familiar with the revised plan and I'm just going to put it--you have it in front of you I see\nall right. Can you draw my attention to the section that deals with remediation of achievement disparities and to help you I'll suggest that it's around 2.7. A. Right. Not around 2.7, it is 2.7. Q. I see. A. Designed to improve--Q. Yes, sir. A. and that does not mean it is a commitment to achievement. Q. All right. Little Rock show imple,emt programs designed to improve and remediate the acievement desparities, the academic achievement. Do you take the position that the district has not agreed to make a conscienous effort to eliminate achievement disparities between the races? A. Say that again, please. Q. Do you take the position that the district has not agreed to make a conscienious effort to eleminate the achievement Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY disparities between the races? A. I believe that the deseg, revised deseg plans speaks for itself. Q. Let me ask it again. 18 A. The commitment is to design program with the intent to reduce the disparity. The difference is ah, is there anything in the plan which requires us to achieve that reduction in disparity. We did make a commitment to design the programs to attempt to remove the disparity. Q. Do you agree that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving AfricanAmerican achievement? A. Say that again. Q. Do you agree that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improve AfricanAmerican achievement? A. Oh, that's not the only legitimate way, it's the only acceptable way. Q. Is that the only legitimate way? A. You can reduce the performance of the non-African-American kids and reduce the disparity. That's not acceptable but it's legitimate. Q. I see. Now do you recall that there was a brief submitted in 1998 which recognized that the Court Of Appeals said that you could not retreat, the board could not retreat from among Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 19 other things the agreed effort to eliminate disparity between the races, it didn't say--let me show you. A. This is germaine to this revised deseg plan? Q. I'm asking you do you agree that the 8th Circuit has indicated that there would be no retreat approved from the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races? A. If that's what you say\nI wasn't aware of it before that. Q. You weren't? Well, are you aware of the brief that your counsel prepared in conjunction with me and submitted to the court, this is for everybody so I won't have to go over it again. \"The 8th Circuit identified seven elements of the LRSD's existing desegregation obligations which it considered crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. Id. at 256. Those elements were: (1) double funding for students attending incentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agree timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early childhood education, at least in the incentive shcools\nand, (7) appropriate involvement of parents.\" were you aware of that? I'll show it to you [hands Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CE. TIFIED COPY 20 document to wi tness]. A. 1998? Q. Yes, sir. A. Okay. Q. were you aware of it? A. No. Q. All right. Now with respect to the plan itself which you have before you, look at it on page 1, were you aware that this plan requires that the orders of the District Court and Court of Appeals interpreting or enforcing sections A through D above will be in effect followed? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now do you still take the position as Mrs. Magness stated, as I understand she stated in a public board meeting that you all simply had to make an effort to do it\ndo you take that position that you simply can make an effort to do it and then fulfill the expectations of this case? A. The way I understood what that said is that shall not retreat from the effort to do that. Q. Okay. A. And I don\"t believe that we have done that. Q. Well, I take it that you all do not agree that you are required to eliminated the achievement disparity? A. Read the whole thing. Q. I'm asking do you, I'm asking you now do you--first of all Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED copy 21 did you ever agree to eliminate the achievement disparity at least to the extent in the state's settlement agreement--- A. Ah, as I recall that is a fuzzy, the end point was not clearly defined. Q. Did it not say that the achievement disparity would be eliminated to the point there would--- A. How do you define that, that--- Q. That's fine. A. My understanding that the issue was that at the end point was not clearly defined\nthere\"s the problem. Q. I see. Well have you all, during the intervening years, ever sought as a public board to define the end point? A. Nope. Q. I see. Why haven\"t you done that and why haven\"t you as a board member sought to have it done? A. Because it's not a trivial thing to do. Q. But it's twelve years 1989 until now and in twelve years you could have addressed it as a board, could you not have? A. we could have but I don't think that we--- Q. That's fine. A. we are not educators, we are not experts in how you would define such a thing like that. Q. I see, that\"s fine. Now Mr. Berkley can you tell me what programs were specifically developed by which to eliminate achievement disparity between the races for which you have seen Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY an evaluation? Have you ever seen any of the evaluations of any programs? A. Yes, but I don't recall the detail of those. 22 Q. Are you familiar, I call you attention to page 148 of your March 15 program? FENDLAND: Which one? REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you? FENDLAND: I said which one. WALKER: Well, let me go back, let me go back to that\nthank you Mrs. Springer. Q. Can you identify any programs which were designed to eliminate achievement disparity between the races? A. In particular ah, I don't know if you would call it a program but a process to ah, ah, increase the participation of African-American kids in ah, pre-AP and AP classes. Q. I'm asking you about a program to remediate the achievement disparities--- A. Well, that's the intent, that's the--- Q. So your answer is that putting more black kids into pre-AP and AP courses, is that your answer? A. That's the one I can think of right now. Q. Can you thi nk of any other program, is that a program or is that a process, did you say? A. I don't how you would define it, I think of it as a process. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 23 Q. Well, let me ask you. Has the board ever approved any program itself other than process for remediating achievement of African-American students? A program? A. Well, the Early Childhood Literacy Program, I think is intended to increase the reading level of all kids particularly those who are behind and the intent of that would be as well to reduce the disparity. Q. That was the intent, so that would deal with the pre-K kids, right? A. And up through 3. Q. Up through 3. Now what are the programs that apply to the children in grades 4 and 5 by which to remediate achievement disparities? A. There well may be but I don't recall that. Q. You don't know of any. Have you ever asked the question? A. I have not. Q. All right. What are the programs for remediating the achievement disparities of students who happen to be AfricanAmerican who are in special education? A. I don't recall specific programs. Q. I see. Do you know of any other programs which have been designed to eliminate achievement disparities between AfricanAmerican and white students or nonwhite students--nonblack students? A. I don't recall any right off. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72 164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 24 Q. I see. Now since one of your board members says the plan doesn't say you have to close the gap it says best effort, good faith effort, look at your plan and draw my attention to where those statements are made, please. A. You said 2.7. Q. 2.7 doesn't say that in my opinion, maybe if you want to say 2.7 I'll go on. A. Repeat your question, please. WALKER: Would you repeat it, please. [The reporter did as requested]. REPORTER: You may continue, sir. A. Well, there are several sections that can influence the--Q. No, I want you, I want you to just draw my attention--FENDLAND: Well, let him finish his answer, please. WALKER: Well that's fine, if you said there are several sections\njust tell me where those several sections are. A. You didn't let me finish. Well, influence the performance of the African-American kids including parential involvement, eligibility, and participation in extracurricular activities--Q. Just a moment, please listen to my question. FENDLEY: Well, are you finished Mr. Berkley? BERKLEY: Yes. Q. Well the point, now I want you to draw my attention to the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 7216 4-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 4 90 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 25 sections of the plan which say that you do not have to actually close the gap but only as Mrs. Magness said, use your best effort and good faith effort to do so. I want to see any where in here where it said good faith effort and best effort to address achievement of the disparity gap? A. Well, there's a few places in this document that says that we do not have to do but I don't believe it says that. Q. Thank you. Now were you shown by any, by Dr. Carnine a program assessment each year of the academic programs which were in place for improving African-American achievement? A. No. Q. All right. 2.71 says that LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. As a board did you all ever do that after each year? A. You mean all programs? Q. Yes, sir. A. Evaluate all programs? Q. Well, the ones that were implemented pursuant to 2.7 in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement, did you ever do that as a board? A. Not specifically that. Q. That's fine. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. we did review academic performance of African-American kids. 26 Q. My question was--well that fine, you said you reviewed it. Did any of those assessments reveal that a program was not and was not likely to improve African-American achievement, did you all make that kind of assessment? A. I don\"t remember that. FENDLEY: As a board? WALKER: As a board. A. I don't remember it. Q. Now did you see written assessments that you would contend as a board member and as a physicist which comply with 2.71 from your administrative staff on an annual basis? A. No, I don't recall all of the assessments that we got Mr. Walker. Q. Well, isn't it fair to say that you were never, that all of your assessments would have been presented to you in a public board meeting--- A. Yes. Q. or through the mail? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Now they would have been done in a public assembly. Q. And isn't it fair to say that you all never discussed in a public board meeting whether any program was improving African-cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 27 American achievement, any particular program? A. It would be fair to say that I don\"t recall that. Q. That's fine. Do you know of any particular program which has overall improved African-American achievement\na program, I'm not talking about a process now? A. But there are individual schools where we\"ve had programs that improved academic performance of African-American kids. Q. Well, can you tell me what those programs are? A. No, I don\"t recall those. Q. Can you tell me where those schools are? A. Not--- Q. All right. A. off the top of my head\nno. Q. All right. Are you aware of the test, the standardize test that were in place in 1989 at the time the commitment was made with the state in the original plan to remediate achievement disparities\nwere you familiar with the test that were in place at that time? FENDLEY: I'll object to the form of the question\nit assumes facts not in evidence. Q. Well all right, let me ask. You were aware that testing had been going in this school district long before you became a school board member? A. Correct. Q. And when you came on some five years ago which would have Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY been 1996, you were aware that the test in place that were standardize were nationally standardize test\nwere you not? A. Correct. Q. You were aware that they included at least the SAT IX? A. Correct. Q. And other SAT test? A. Right. 28 Q. I see. Did you know of any nationally standardize test that were being utilized by the Little Rock School District at the time you came onto the board? A. No. Q. I see. So if the plan, you said something about this being vague, so if the only standardize test being used were the SAT tests, would you not expect that those were the test that would have been the benchmark for determining improvement of remediation or remediation of achievement disparities between black and white students? FENDLAND: Let me object, the question calls for speculation by the witness on what drafters of the 1989 settlement agreement intended. Q. That\"s fine, that's fine. Now you can still go ahead and answer the question. A. Please repeat it. Q. The question basically is that those are the test in use, would you not--first of all are those tests still in use? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 29 A. Yes. Q. I see. Have you met with any school board members to change those tests for evaluation purposes? You and the board, have you all changed those tests for any reason, any purpose? A. Well, I think we\"ve reduced the number of tests\nI don\"t recall exactly which ones have been eliminated. Q. All right. But the test that were in place when you came onto the board are still in place, are they not? A. Right. Q. I see. Now has the board determined that it will change that particular test, the SAT IX test? A. I don\"t think so. Q. What is the purpose of giving these students the SAT IX test in the f i rst place in your opinion as a physicist and as a board member? A. A physicist doesn't have much to do with it. Q. Well, physicist suppose to be among our most bright people, most logical. A. It's to assess our performance relative to national norm. Q. That's right. And also to determine from year-to-year how students are improving their academic performance, isn\"t that correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. A. Hopefully improving. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Horne , AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 30 Q. I see. Now doesn't 2.1 say that if you find that programs are not working--- FENDLEY: 2.7.1. WALKER: 2.7.1, I\"m sorry. Q. Doesn't that in effect say that if your programs are not working you have to throw them out and get some others? A. It says either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Q. That's basically the same thing isn\"t it? A. No. Q. I see. Well have you all ever modified any program or replaced any program that you determined was not working--first of all did you all ever determine that a particular program was not working? A. I don\"t recall that. FENDLEY: Let me just clear up are you meaning the board rather than him? WALKER: Meaning the board, meaning the board. He can\"t act individually. A. No. I rely on the administrators to do that. Q. Have t he administrators ever come to you and told you that in their opinion after assessment or evaluation, particular programs were not working to improve African-American achievement? A. I don\"t recall that but I\"m sure that that kind of activity Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 31 goes on all the time. Q. Well, at least to the board it isn't. No persons on the administrative staff have come before the board to inform you that a particular program, any program has not worked and is not likely to work to improve African-American achievement? A. You know, I don't recall that but it could well be that when they introduce new programs that is, they wouldn't say this program is bad, they would say we're implementing a new progr am because we think it's better\nand that doesn't mean they didn't go through that process and I'm not aware of it. Q. This says that you shall assess the academic programs each year and then change it if it's not working. A. Right. Q. Now does that mean that you as a board tolerated change without an assessment? Change such as the one you mentioned, people coming up like Dr. Les was saying, well we think that this will be better than what we have\ntherefore, we don't need to make this assessment we'll just put this other thing in place? A. Mr. Walker I don't believe that happened. Q. I see. Well, you said that some people have come up, that means basically your instruction department doesn't it? A. Right. Q. And they\"ve come up with other programs, is that right? A. Right. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. But that, that was not after an assessment that preexisting programs were not working? A. I wouldn't make that assumption. 32 Q. I see. And you have not seen such an assessment have you? A. I don't recall seeing it. Q. That's fine. Now you understand, would you assume that under this plan the assessments that were being made ah, had to be documented? A. I don't know about that\nI don't know what the standard is as far as--there's all kind of program evaluations. Q. I see. A. There are informal program evaluations and there are formal evaluations. Q. What does your plan call for? A. It says evaluate. Q. Doesn't it say that the evaluation has to be pursuant--did you all as a board not adopt a particular writing regarding program evaluation, do you recall that? A. I recall implementing a program within the last couple of years for program evaluations. Q. Do you not recall specifically developing a program evaluation written format? A. I don't recall that\nno, sir. Q. Now as a physicist you know that if you're going to evaluate anything it has to be pursuant to and you evaluating Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 33 things in a series of things that are somewhat related, it has to be pursuant to criteria and standards that are uniformly applied, would you not say that? A. Sometimes. Q. Is that any reason why there should be education and then an investigation? A. Yes. Q. What's the reasons? A. It\"s a very different world. Q. Well, I mean what's so different about it? I mean, the, the, the--- A. Logic is highly quantifiable and there are a lot of things in education that are not quantifiable. Q. You assume that? A. No, I know that. Q. How do you know it? A. Oh, I work as a medical physicist and in medical physic there are a lot of things, biological things that are not quantifiable like there are in pure physics. Just as in education you can\"t define all the parameters, you can't measure every parameter and when you mix all these parameters together you, the end result is something which is sometimes not quantifiable. REPORTER: One moment. You may continue, sir. Q. Now I call your attention to page 148 and I show you thing Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 so you won't have any problem. A. What's is this document? CERTIFIED COPY 34 Q. That's in the report that you all submitted saying that you were ready for release from court supervision. A. Right. Q. That deals with program evaluation. Look at the bottom of the page, can you tell me, there is listed a number of programs that the district says it evaluated. A. Right. Q. Have you ever seen those evaluations? A. I don't recall Mr. Walker, we see lots of evaluations and lots of reports and I can't recall every one of them. Q. Now I\"ve been trying to see some of these evaluations, now I haven't seen them and I'm wanting to tell--if you tell me that you have seen them then that's fine. Just tell me which ones you have seen that you recall, any one that you recall seeing? A. I really can't tell you. Mr. Walker there's so much stuff that comes in front of us, by us that--- Q. Now you understand--- A. now I'm not going to say that I haven't seen something because--- Q. Well--- A. I don't remember a lot of what I've seen. Q. Were you aware that the judge had said that she's really Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 35 concerned about your evaluations, that's what we're focusing upon now--- A. Right. Q. and upon remediation efforts. A. Right. Q, All right. Now can you tell me as you sit here today Mr. Berkley before you go onto the stand if you go on the stand, if you before March 15 had seen any written evaluation of any of those programs that are listed there? A. Again Mr. Walker, I don't recall seeing them--Q. That's fine. A. but it could well be that I have seen them. Q. Well, I've given it to you so that you can refresh your--A. Okay. Q. Now you've met with Mr. Fendley before today haven't you? A. Correct. Q. You've had a chance to be made aware that the court was concerned about the evaluation issue. A. Correct. Q. All right. And not withstanding that meeting with Mr. Fendley and the court's concerns that were made known to you, you still can't come up with a single program evaluation that you've ever seen can you? FENDLEY: I'm going to object, he's asked and answered\nhe doesn't evaluation he's seen. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. But I'm asking right now, you've had a chance to--A. I'm not going to change my answer. 36 Q. you don't have to change your answer but he can't tell you not to change your answer\nI'm going to ask another question. Did you think about the issue of evaluation before you came to this deposition today? A. Before is a long time. Q. Before today. Anytime? A. I thought about it when the hearing was going on--Q. All right. A. and that there was concern about it. Q. All right. Now you were in court during that time--A. Some of that time--- Q. at least one day--- A. some of the time. Q. now since that time, being aware of the court's concern, can you say you have reviewed any evaluation that was in writing regarding any of the programs that are on page 148 of your report saying that you had done those things? A. I do not recall that. WALKER: That's fine. Just a moment. [A recess was taken at 11:14 a.m., proceedings resumed at 11:15 a.m., to-wit:] REPORTER: We are on the record, sir and you may continue. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY DIRECT EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Walker Con't: 37 Q. Did you ever receive a report from any administrator that your Evaluation Department before March 15 was not performing at a professional level? FENDLEY: Object to the form, March 15 what year? WALKER: 2001. A. I did not receive a report that they were not performing as professionals. Q. I see. Do you have at this time at PRE Evaluation Department, PRE Department? A. I think that we are reorganizing it. Q. So that you don\"t have one? A. I think that--- FENDLEY: He's answered the question. WALKER: Just a moment, now. Q. I want you to tell me if you have a PRE Department in your opinion? A. In my opinion? Q. Yes, sir. A. I do not know that a department per sa exist. Q. I see. A. That does not mean that evaluations aren't going to happen. Q. What is the last date that you had an Evaluation Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 38 Department, a PRE Department? FENDLEY: Object, that assumes that we don't have one now which is not his testimony. REPORTER: You need to speak up. Q. What is the last date that you had a PRE staff of more than two people? A. I don't know. Q. What is the last date that you have had a conversation with any person in a PRE Department regarding PRE evaluation of programs that had the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of academic programs in improving African-American achievement? A. Repeat the question. WALKER: Would you do so? [The reporter did as requested.] REPORTER: All right, sir. FENDLEY: Let me say an objection as to the form of the question. Q. That's fine\nnow you can still answer. A. I don't recall a particular date. WALKER: All right, I don't have any more questions of you Mr. Berkley for right now\nthank you. Berkley. BERKLEY: Okay. FENDLEY: I don't have any questions of Mr. WALKER: Okay, you can go\ngood to see you. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone , (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 2001.] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 39 [The deposition ended at 11:17 a.m., October 5, * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box f4 sweet Horne, AR 72164- 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax (- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (- 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 CERTIFIED COPY 40 ERRATA SHEET (Upon completion, please sign and date this sheet below.) Page ..!::L Line -1fL_ Page -:2.. ~ Line Zr::, Page ~s Line b Page ~3 Line '7 _ Page3\"3 Line _!X_ Page ss Line~ Page Line Page Line Page Li ne Page Line Page Line Page Line Change: 9o To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: -\\:14~1JlM+'b\\ cc.Q P 1 '2 dl \\ ~Ci-PV':f S.: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: fo -\u0026lt;-4-0 / Page Date Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 CERTIFIED COPY 41 SIGNATURE PAGE I, LARRY BERKLEY, hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is a full, true, correct and complete transcript of the proceeding [mark the appropriate box]: ( ) had at the time of the taking of my deposition. (OR) (vr--subject to the notations on the attached Errata Sheet made by me or at my direction. /o- 2-le-\u0026lt;::\u0026gt; I Date ~~BERKLEY STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ss. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a and for the aforesaid county and state on this of ~ Notary ttlic in J-\u0026amp;- day Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: (SEAL) Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box J .4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ERTIFIED COPY 42 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, LARRY BERKLEY, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me in stenomask and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to provide any service not available to all parties to the act. My Commission Expires: Notary Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1239","title":"Oral deposition of Sue H. Strickland","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Cobb Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2001-10-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Sue H. Strickland"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1239"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["21 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at the Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n   CERTIFIED COPY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF MRS. SUE H. STRICKLAND DATE: Octobers, 2001 TIME: 11:22 a.m. PLACE: The Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law .Firm 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendants: Mr. John w. Walker, Attorney John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Clay Fendley, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 west Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, The John w. Walker Law Firm Tony Rose, Judy Magness, \u0026amp; Katherine Mitchell, Deponents Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 7216 4-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (50~) 490 - 0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 26 CERTIFIED COPY 2 AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL .. SWEARING OF THE WITNESS ... EXAMINATION OF MRS SUE H. STRICKLAND By Mr. Walker .. SIGNATURE SHEET .. ERRATA SHEET. COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax PAGE . 3 . . . . . . . 3 . . . 3-28 . . . . . . 2 9 .30 . 31  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of Sue H. Strickland, produced, sworn and examined at the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm, 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 commencing at 11:22 a.m., on October 5, 2001, in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition by witness, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G S THEREUPON, SUE H. STRICKLAND having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. Mrs. Strickland state your name for the record. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 4 A. Sue Strickland. Q. Mrs. Strickland do you take the position--what is your position about the board's obligation with respect to implementation of the revised desegregation plan and the court orders in this case, what is your position regarding that? FENDLEY: I object to the form. WALKER: Well, let me make sure we know, we\"re talking about the same thing. Q. Are you familiar with the revised desegregation plan? A. I am. Q. Are you familiar with the Court Of Appeals having set forth seven elements which your counsel agreed that could not be retreated from? A. I am aware. Q. Now what is your understanding of the board's commitment with respect to implementation of the revised desegregation plan and existing court orders? What are you all suppose to be doing? A. We\"re suppose to be implementing it to the best of our ability. Q. Do you understand that you have made, that you have agreed to make a specific effort to elimination achievement disparity between the races? Do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? A. I\"m not sure exactly if it says that and--cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box H Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 5 Q. I see. A. I believe--- Q. I\"m sorry, go right ahead. A. I believe that it is our intent to close the gap as best we can. Q. Well--- A. To make a genuine effort. Q. Do you agree--well, were you told by Mr. Fendley and Mr. Heller that you had told Judge Wright in 1998 the following: The Eighth Circuit identified seven elements of LRSD's existing desegregation obligations which it considered crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. elements were: (1) double funding for students attending incentive (virtually all-black) schools, yes? A. Yes. Those FENDLEY: Let me just object to the form of the question to the extent you\"re asking about not communications between ah, either myself of Chris and Mrs. Strickland outside the context of a public board meeting. WALKER: Well, at any time, I mean I don\"t, I'm going to ask the question--- FENDLEY: Well, we're objecting, it\"s privileged. Q. Well, well, did you have any one-on-one meeting with Mr. Heller to discuss, I mean or Mr. Fendley to discuss the Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 6 commitments that were being made to the court back in 1999 or at any other time? A. Have been meetings with him, yes. Q. Do you, are you, were you aware of this public document which was presented to the court? Look at it. Since he\"s now dealing with the concept of privilege. FENDLEY: I just objected to the extent of your question because you just said any conversation. WALKER: Well my question--let me go on now. Q. The second element would be operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable? A. I was aware of this, yes. Q. Intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agree timetable? A. As me a question. Q. It's the same, these are the elements that you cannot retreat from. A. Right, I was aware of this, yes. Q. The agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races, were you aware of that? A. Let me read that. Q. Were you aware of that? A. Uh-huh. Q. Ma'am? FENDLEY: You need to speak up. Cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. You have to say yes or no. FENDLEY: Well, if your answer is going to be yes or no, you need to say yes or no so she can take it down. 7 WALKER: To her without getting an answer from Mr. Fendland. A. I don\"t believe that, that I have ever seen it in writing where it says that you must close the disparity gap. Q. I\"m asking only about what is written before you. A. Uh-huh. Q. were you aware that that had been committed by your counsel? Yes or no. FENDLAND: I'm going to object to the form of the question. That's a quote from an Eighth Circuit opinion. Q. were you aware that this was committed in a paper prepared by your council? A. I was aware of the paper. Q. Were you aware of this particular commitment? FENDLAND: Object to the use of the term commitment. Q. Now you answered the first one Mrs. Strickland, number 1 and number 2, and number three and number 4 but when we get down to number 5 why can\"t you answer the same way? What makes that difficult? A. Well, I was not aware that it state, was stated exactly like that. Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 8 Q. That's right. But that is there now, this is a surprise to you isn't it? Yes or no. A. Probably, yes. Q. All right. Why is it a surprise Mrs. Strickland, why is that a surprise to you number 5, so that the record will be clear about what we\"re talking about it's the memorandum filed with United States District Court January 29, 1998. Why is that a surprise to you? A. I have never had any doubt in my mind that it was our intent to close the disparity gap as best we could. I have never seen anywhere saying that we\"re guaranteed that we're going to close this gap. Q. But number 5, this is the first time that you have been aware of it like being presented this way\nis that correct? A. That\"s probably, it's the first time I have read those words exactly like that. Q. That's fine. A. I was thinking that it was taking it more from the revised desegregation plan which is what we had said we were doing. Q. Do you agree that the only legitimate way to achieve elimination of the achievement disparity is by improving African-American achievement\ndo you agree with that? A. No, I don't. Q. That's fine. Now let me ask you if you have a gap between black and white students, let's say students, white students Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 9 are at the 60 percentile and blacks are in the 30 percentile and you want to achieve that gap, is it fair to say that you have to focus your attentions upon the students who are in the lower numbered? A. Certainly\nyes. Q. I see. That has to be the focus point of your efforts doesn\"t it more so than just continuing to do the same things you've been doing\nisn\"t that correct? FENDLAND: Object to the form. WALKER: I'll change the question. Q. If you\"re going to narrow the gap and raise the achievement of the ones in the bottom, you'd have to focus upon them don't you? A. I think so, yes. Q. All right. A. And I think we've done that. Q. But you don\"t recognize that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity is by improving African-American achievement? A. Well, I think--- Q. That's yes or no, I not asking for your opinion. FENDLAND: She can answer your question however she--- WALKER: This is a deposition--STRICKLAND: Uh-huh. Cobb Court Reporting P.O.Box#4 ' Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 10 WALKER: I\"m conducting this, this is not court. FENDLAND: Well, she--- WALKER: Do you agree--- FENDLAND: the witness can answer the question in anyway she feels. WALKER: You can ask her whatever you want to if you want to clear up anything\nthis is my deposition, this is discovery. FENDLAND: You can\"t tell the witness how to answer the question. Q. I\"m asking you now do you agree with the statement that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement? A. I think we have to improve African-American achievement\nthat is not the only way. Q. Do you recognize that your counsel has written that that's the only way? Read it down in the last paragraph. Read it. Were you aware that your counsel who has told you that you all are ready for unitary status had made that commitment? FENDLAND: Object, counsel didn't make any commitments. A. I think we\"ve done that, I think we've improved. Q. We didn't say improve, this doesn't say anything about improving. Your position seems to always be improving isn't it? Your whole statement is that you all are committed to Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone , (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 11 improving the educational options for black students? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] REPORTER: Answer yes. FENDLEY: Object--WALKER: She nodded yes. FENDLEY: Well, let me object to the form of the question if that was finished. STRICKLAND: I think I was nodding that I was listening. Q. Well, let me ask you. Is it your position that you don't, you only have to make your best efforts to eliminate the gap, not to actually eliminate it\nis that your position? A. I think you have to make a genuine effort to do everything you can to help close that gap. Q. All right. Does that mean that you have to develop programs which are addressed and devoted to meeting the specific educational needs of the African-American children? A. I certainly do\nyes. Q. Can you tell me any program that the board has approved for eliminating, not improving, eliminating the gap\nname one program? A. I think everything we do. Q. You can't name a particular program can you? A. I think everything we do. Q. But I'm asking you right now can you name a particular Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 12 program? A. I have given you my answer. FENDLEY: She's answered the question. Q. I understand you have given me your answer, can you tell me any program that the board approved after January of 1998 which had that intended effect\nany particular program? A. Everything we do. Q. Well, just name the programs then. Name the programs. A. Everything we do\nyou have my answer. Q. Mrs., Mrs., Mrs. Strickland you got to name a program for me\ncan you name one program, do you know one program that you all do that has that purpose? A. Yes, all of them\neverything we do. Q. I see. Are you familiar with the evaluations that are set forth on page 148 of the March 15, 2001 report? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever seen a written evaluation of any of those programs that are set forth there? A. Yes, I have. FENDLAND: At the bottom of the page? Q. Yes, you\"ve seen that? A. Yes. Q. Name the ones you have seen. A. Well, I've seen a number of them. Q. Name the ones. Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box *4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 13 A. Understanding your school, I have the Hippy Program, the Charter school program ah, that's just the ones I think off the top of my head. The Model Inks--- Q. Go ahead, look at them all. A. English A Second Language, Campus Leadership. Q. You've come up with five. A. That's the ones I can think of off the top of my head but--- Q. I see. Now Mrs. Strickland--- A. I would say we've probably seen all of them. Q. Do you have a Hippy program? A. Well, yes. Q. You still have a Hippy program? A. Well, we cut it back tremendously. Q. Was it working to eliminate African-American achievement disparity at the time you cut it back? A. I really don't know. Q. Can you tell me which of these programs actually worked in your opinion to eliminate African-American Achievement disparities? FENDLAND: Which are the program on the bottom of 148? WALKER: That are listed on page 148\nyes. FENDLAND: Do you want to include all the ones that are discussed in this paragraph? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 14 WALKER: The ones at the bottom that are listed at 148. FENDLAND: The bullet points only. STRICKLAND: Uh-huh. A. Well, you know closing the disparity gap was a part of that program--- Q. I'm only asking you--- A. it's a part of everything. Q. Mrs. Strickland, I'm just asking you to tell me which of these programs had that result? FENDLAND: What result? WALKER: Of closing the disparity gap, that's what she said. Q. Which one of them had that, which ones of those had that result? A. Well, I believe most of the things we do helps to close that disparity gap. Q. Well, how do you measure the closing of the gap in your opinion? A. I don't r eally know. Q. Well, how can you say that it has that--A. When the scores have improved. Q. Let me ask you this. How can you make an assessment that the gap has been closed without knowing--- A. Ah, excuse me? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone: (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-092~ - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 15 Q. How can you make an assessment that the gap--are you saying that the gap has been closed? A. Nope. Q. I see. A. Did I say that? Q. Well, that's what I thought you were saying. A. I said it helps--- Q. I stand corrected. A. all of our programs helps to close that gap. Q. I see. Let me ask you, you've been on the board now seven years? A. Right. Q. What was the, what was the test in use for determining the standardize test in use at that time for assessing student achievement or student performance\nwhat was the test? A. Ah, I really don't know. Q. I see. Did the board ever discuss what test it would use for assessing or achieving, for assessing student achievement? Did you all ever have a public discussion regarding that? A. You talking about closing the disparity gap? Q. No, for just evaluating student performance, did you all ever discuss what test you all would use? A. Overall test? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Well, we have a number of tests we use. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. But did you all as a board ever discuss those test? A. Discuss them in what way? 16 Q. Well first of all, can you identify the test that you understood, the standardize test that you all used say when you came onto the board\nwhat were they? A. SAT was one of them. Q. What else? A. Ah, I really don't remember but there were several. Q. I see. What--did you all as a board ever eliminate the SAT? A. I don't think so. Q. I see. Do you know of any other test by which the administration was directed to measure student achievement in 1995, 6, 7, or 8, you know any other test, standardize test? A. Well, we do ACTAP. Q. ACTAP, is that by 1998? A. I don't, I'm not sure what year it was started. Q. I see. A. SAT is really the only one I remember. Q. Mrs. Strickland do you know of any time the board ever addressed as a board the issue of whether any program that was in place was actually working to effectively either narrow or close the achievement disparity between black and white students, any program? Did you all ever have that discussion? A. We have discussed many times the closing the disparity Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COP 11 gap--- Q. Listen to my question. A. and our effort to do so. Q. My question is did you all ever assess as the plan says--FENDLAND: You meaning the board? WALKER: The board\nanytime I'm talking. Q. You understand we recognize that you can't make a judgment by yourself for the board can you? A. Right. Q. All right. FENDLAND: Ah,, I'm distinguishing between you meaning LRSD and you as the board. WALKER: The board, always. FENDLAND: Okay. Q. LRSD is the board isn\"t it? You all delegate everything to staff\nis that right but you are the responsible parties? A. We\"re the responsible parties. Q. All right. FENDLAND: Well, I'm making the distinction between you ask her did you, are you saying did anybody in the district do it or did the board do it? WALKER: The board. FENDLAND: Okay. Q. 2.71 says that the district shall assess the academic programs which were implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs and improving African-American achievement\nyou\"re familiar with that aren\"t you? A. Yes. 18 Q. Now in order to assess these programs they have to first be identified don't they Mrs. Strickland? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] Q. Ma'am? REPORTER: Answer, yes. A. Yes. Q. All right. Can you identify the programs which were implemented that you all assessed? A. No. Q. Can you identi--you can\"t can you? A. No. Q. Now isn't it fair Mrs. Strickland to say that you all did not see annual assessments of all of the programs that you--you said earlier , now listen to what I'm saying, you said everything was supposed to be working toward that end didn't you? A. Right. Q. Now that meant then that you had to have an assessment every year under this of all those programs didn't you? FENDLAND: I'm going to object to the form of the question, that's a legal conclusion as to the meaning of Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 19 the--- Q. I'm asking you the question now\nhe can object at court and that's for the record of course. In your opinion you have to under this policy, you would have to make an assessment of each one of those programs every year wouldn't you? FENDLAND: The same objection. Q. You still have to answer the question. A. I have to answer the question? Q. Yes, ma'am. FENDLAND: If you understand it. A. I think the answer should be yes. Q. All right. Now isn't it fair to say that you never saw written assessments, let's talk about them unwritten later, but you never say written assessments of each one of these myriad programs, myriad meaning many, that were in operation in the school district on an annual basis did you? A. I don't remember seeing every one\nI remember some. Q. Well, we saw on page 148--- A. Uh-huh. Q. I think you identified five but you have far more programs than the dozen that are listed on this page don't you? A. Yes. Q. All right. And is it fair to say that you all never as a board made a judgment that a particular program was working to improve African-American achievement did you? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 20 A. We did not. Q. All right. Can you tell me as you sit there which program, in your opinion according to the administrators especially Dr. Carnine, has worked to improve African-American achievement? Can you identify any particular program? FENDLEY: Let me object to the form if you're asking her to speculate which program Dr. Carnine thinks improved the performance. Q. I'm only talking about reports that were made to you by-you don't make assessment yourself do you Mrs. Strickland? A. I do not. Q. You only rely on those people you hire. A. That's right. Q. And they come to you as a board in a board meeting and make presentations. A. That's right. Q. All right. Now can you tell me any programs that they reported to you had been effective in improving AfricanAmerican achievement? I just want you to tell me yes, if there were some and which ones they were. A. No, I don't remember. REPORTER: You're going to have to speak up a little bit more for me. A. I'm sorry. I don\"t remember. Q. Now you understand that there have been a lot of program Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY changes in the last three years, isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. Now those program changes came about under Dr. Lesley didn't they? A. Yes, they did. 21 Q. And they came about without there having been an assessment of existing programs\nisn't that fair to say a written assessment that was presented to the board? A. I don't know. Q. Well, you don't ever remember seeing any written assessments made as contemplated by 2.7 and presented to the board do you? FENDLAND: I object to the form. Q. Now, you can answer the question. You don't remember seeing any of those do you? A. I don't remember. Q. All right. Now you don't just go and get rid of programs as a matter of routine unless you have made as an education an appraisal that those programs are not effective do you? That would be the normal expectation wouldn't it Mrs. Strickland? A. Yes\nright. Q. Now, but you all actually did that when Dr. Lesley came in because she said I think this can work better\nshe told you that didn't she? FENDLEY: Object, that is a compound question. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 22 Q. She has come--you a friend of Dr. Lesley's now aren\"t you? A. I am? Q. Are you not? A. I\"m an acquaintance of hers I think you would say. Q. All right. A. And I hope that I'm a friend to everybody at the school district. Q. You, you\"re my friend, at least you used to be my friend\nI haven\"t talked to you for the last couple of years but you-does Dr. Lesley attend your church? A. No. She visited with me one Sunday. Q. I see. That's sort of friendship, isn't it? A. Yeah, I consider\nyeah, I guess she's a friend. Q. And you all talk about school matters a lot don\"t you one-on- one? A. Well, if I have a problem with anything, I don\"t understand anything--- Q. You call her? A. Dr. Lesley is a good one for me to call. Q. I see. And you have more one-on-one communication with Dr. Lesley than any other school administrator don't you? A. No, I wouldn\"t say that. Q. Well, who else would you have more one-on-one communication with? FENDLAND: I think you need to define a time Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 23 period on that. WALKER: Well, I'll do that. Q. But at this time which board, which school administrator do you have the most one-on-one communication with? A. Probably the superintendent. Q. Okay, that\"s fine. Now before he came--no, in the first months after he came which school board member did you have-which school staff member did you have the most contact with? A. When he first, when, when who first came Dr. James? Q. Yes. A. Would you tell me where this is leading, I don\"t quite understand this? Q. I'm leading, I\"m trying to get up to the point of programs and I'll just go to it. A. Uh-huh. Q. Dr. Lesley told you did she not that she could put into place some better programs than the ones that were existence to help improve learning for all children didn\"t she? A. I don\"t think she\"s ever told me that\nno. Q. What did she tell you? A. I don't know\nwhat conversation you\"re referring to. Q. Well, did she ever tell you that the program that she contemplated would work better than the ones that were already in place in order to achieve improvement of African-American progress in schools? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 24 A. You mean, you\"re asking me if she told me that personally? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. I don\"t think so. Q. Did she ever tell the board that? A. I don't remember those words. Q. I see. Now--- A. But if I may clarify that, my assumption is anytime that a new program is implemented it's working toward that goal because we all know the deseg plan. Q. Well now, Mrs. Strickland you know that every time a new superintendent comes in you get new programs don\"t you? A. Well, that\"s true some time. Q. All right. Now you all don't just throw out programs that are working do you? A. we try not to. Q. All right. Did you have any programs before Dr. Lesley came that in your opinion had been or were successful in remediating African-American achievement, any one program? A. I can't think of one. Q. You can't think, now can you think of one since she's come that's been effective in remediating African-American achievement? A. I believe that our test scores are better. Q. No, we're talking about programs now rather than what somebody has told you or you believe represents better scores. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY But the thing now, can you think of any program? A. No. 25 Q. All right. Now you talk about test scores, the only uniform test score that's been in place throughout these years has been the SAT hasn't it? A. I think so. Q. So if you're going to measure progress and you've been an educator at one time haven't you? A. R.ght Q. And what you try to look at as an educator is a continuum over, things over a period of time rather than a snapshot, isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. All right. Now if test scores show basically flatness in terms of black achievement and white achievement over a continuum, does not that indicate that whatever gap existed is still there? A. If it\"s flat? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Yes. Q. All right. Now has the board ever said that it's going to look at some other, that it's going to adopt a different appraisal system for determining remediation of the achievement gap? A. Not that I know of. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 26 Q. All right. Now with respect to evaluations Mrs. Strickland, you've always wanted to have people held accountable haven't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you also have always presumed that your people would be truthful haven't you\nthat is your administrators? A. That's right. Q. Did you find Dr. Carnine to be truthful in your opinion? A. Sometimes, no. Q. That's right. Did Dr. Carnine report to you that he was regularly meeting with John w. Walker with respect to the issues contained in the revised Desegregation and Education plan? A. He did. Q. I see. Did he tell you that I was i n agreement with what was going on? A. I don't know that he ever told us those words. Q. I see. Now did he tell you that program evaluation was proceeding as contemplated by the plan? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. You\"re aware now are you not that program evaluation was not proceeding as the plan required\nhave you been made aware of that? A. Well, I think that's a statement you\"re making. Q. Has anybody else representing the district told you that Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490- 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 21 the district court has found grave problems with your programs evaluations both existence of them and the substance of them\nhas anybody told you that? FENDLAND: Let me object to the form of the question. She hasn't been told that because the district court hasn't made those findings. Q. Well, have you been in court at any time? A. Not on this particular case\nnot this time. Q. Have any of your school board members told you that they have been in court and heard Judge Wright? A. I know some board members that have been in court. Q. I see. Did any of those board members represent to you or did the superintendent represent to you in any writing or statement that the court expressed grave concerns about the district evaluation program? A. I heard her remarks. Q. All right. Now is that anything that you know--now you understand with respect to program evaluation that you all have to have written evaluations as over against somebody's thought that this thing is working or not, there's a difference between somebody's opinion about whether something is working and whether or not an assessment has been made, a written assessment, an evaluation. FENDLAND: I'm going to object\nthat's a compound question. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 28 WALKER: I'll change it\nthank you. FENDLAND: You started asking one question and you changed. WALKER: You're absolutely right. Q. If someone, if you make a commitment to do program evaluation for instance as it is set forth here, those programs were to be--that's a program evaluation commitment isn't it Mrs. Strickland? A. Yes. Q. All right. That's from the plan isn't it? Now 2.7 is what it addresses and it says here that you shall assess the academic programs after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the programs and improving African-American achievement. It doesn't say anything about assessing the effectiveness of the programs from an effectiveness of white student improvement does it? It talks about improving black students, right? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] Right. REPORTER: Answer, yes. A. Yes, I'm sorry. WALKER: All right. No further questions. FENDLAND: I don't have any questions. [The deposition ended at 11:55 a.m., October 5, 2001.] * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone , (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax ERTIFIED COPY 29 (- 1 ERRATA SHEET 2 3 (Upon completion, please sign and date this sheet below.) 4 5 Page Line Change: 6 To: 7 Reason: 8 Page Line Change: 9 To: 10 Reason: 11 Page Line Change: 12 To: 13 Reason: 14 Page Line Change: 15 To: 16 Reason: 17 Page Line Change: 18 To: 19 Reason: 20 Page Line Change: (- 21 To: 22 Reason: 23 Page Line Change: 24 To: 25 Reason: 26 Page Line Change: 27 To: 28 Reason: 29 Page Line Change: 30 To: 31 Reason: 32 Page Line Change: 33 To: 34 Reason: 35 Page Line Change: 36 To: 37 Reason: 38 Page Line Change: 39 To: 40 Reason: 41 42 Page of - 43 SUE H. STRICKLAND Date 44 Cobb Court Reporting P. 0. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CERTIFIED COPY SIGNATURE PAGE I, SUE H. STRICKLAND, hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is a full, true, correct and complete transcript of the proceeding [mark the appropriate box]: had at the time of the taking of my deposition. (OR) subject to the notations on the attached Errata Sheet made by me or at my direction. - Date STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ss. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid county and state on thi s o-\u0026lt;'7.\u0026lt;/o --u. of {Jc\n/: (SEAL) Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax day    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 CERTIFIED COPY 31 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, SUE H. STRICKLAND, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me in stenomask and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to provide any service not available to all parties to the act. My Commission Expires: Cobb Court -Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eCobb Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1231","title":"Oral deposition of Tony Rose","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Cobb Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2001-10-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Tony Rose"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1231"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["71 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at the Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n   CERTIFIED COPY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEPOSITION OF MR. TONY ROSE DATE: October 5, 2001 TIME: 12:38 p.m. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLACE: The Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm 400 West Capitol, Suite #2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendants: Mr. John w. Walker, Attorney John w. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Clay Fendley, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 west Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, The John w. Walker Law Firm Judy Magness, Sue Strickland, \u0026amp; Katherine Mitchell, Deponents Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  4 5 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL. SWEARING OF THE WITNESS . . EXAMINATION OF MR. TONY ROSE By Mr. Walker. . SIGNATURE SHEET . . ERRATA SHEET . . COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION . . * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box Jl4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax PAGE . . 3 . . . . 3 ... . 3-24 . .      25 . .26 . 27  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of Tony Rose, produced, sworn and examined at the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm, 400 West Capitol, Suite #2200, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 commencing at 12:38 p.m., on October 5, 2001, in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition by witness, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G S THEREUPON, TONY ROSE having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. State your name. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. Tony Rose. Q. Mr. Rose were you informed that the school district had committed to the revised desegregation and education plan in January of 1988? A. I'm aware of the district committing to that plan. Q. You were not on the board at that time? A. I was not on the board at that time. 4 Q. I see. Were you aware that the plan calls for remediation of academic achievement of African-American students? A. My understanding is it calls for efforts to remediate the gap. Q. Well, look at 2.7. A. 2.7. REPORTER: Now, speak up a little bit for me, please. ROSE: Yes, ma'am. Q. 2.7 says it shall implement programs, policy, and procedures- -- A. Designed--- Q. designed to improve and remediate the achievement gap, the academic achievement of African-American students. A. Yes, sir. Q. Then 2.71 said that in order to do that you\"re going to have an annual assessment of the academic programs to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box H Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) . 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 American achievement. A. Yes, sir. CERTIFIED COPY Q. Have you ah, when did you go onto the board? A. A year and two weeks ago. 5 Q. I see. Have you seen an assessment--first of all, have you seen a litany or a listing of the academic programs in place when you came onto the board or during that year? A. A full list\nno, I don't believe I have. Q. I see. Do you agree that in order to make an assessment of a program the program has to have some kind of identity? A. It depends on the nature of the assessment. Q. well, if you\"re going to make an assessment as contemplated here, you have to know what the program is before you can determine the effectiveness of the academic program in improveing African-American achievement\nyou have to know what it is don't you? A. That's fair\nyes. Q. All right. Have you been given a listing of the programs which are in place, which were in place when you came on the board which had the purpose of improving African-American achievement? A. I understand that pursuant to the plan their are three programs. Q. What were those three? A. That's the National Science Foundation math and science Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 6 program whatever it's called, the ah, early literacy, Pre-K literacy whatever it's called, and the middle school program. Q. What are the source of your understanding? A. The ah, report I believe\nthe compliance report. Q. Well now the plan is the plan, so I want you to--well, now that is a compliance--- A. Right. Q. I\"m saying here I would like to see where the plan says that there were three programs. A. I don\"t believe it does. Q. All right. Now are you saying that those were the only plans that you knew of which had the purpose of determining the effectiveness of--let me change it, change it. Are those the only programs which were in place that the board assessed in order to determine the effectiveness in improving AfricanAmerican achievement? A. Those were the programs that were apart of the program evaluation agenda as I understand it. The board approved program evaluation agenda. Q. Now this, this does not, 2.7 doesn\"t address or relate to the evaluation agenda. A. No. Q. It talks, it says here and I read it literally, \"it shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box *4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY programs in improving African-American achievement.\" A. It certainly says that, yes. 7 Q. All right. Are there any academic programs, programs which have been--which were implemented pursuant to 2.7 as of the time you came onto the board? A. The, my understanding has been that since the ah, desegregation orders were issued that the board has directed the district, the administrators have made their best efforts to comply to improve education level. Q. Well now Mr. Rose--- A. Did I misunderstand the question? Q. I don't mean to get or cross words with you--A. And I don\"t want to get cross words with you. Q. now I want to go through this. It says that Little Rock shall implement, 2.7 says that you shall implement the policies, programs, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you saying--- FENDLAND: Including but not limited to Section 5 of the revised plan. WALKER: That's right. Q. Now are you saying that to your knowledge the only programs that have that purpose were the National Science Foundation Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone 1 ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 8 grant, the early literacy program, and the middle school program? A. No, sir\nI'm not saying that. Q. Right. Now my question then is can you identify the other programs which were placed into effect by the school board which had the purpose of complying with 2.7 or its subordinate sections? A. No, I can\"t identify those those programs. Q. All right. Now if you can\"t identify a thing and you say you had it, that means you can\"t assess it doesn't it? A. Correct. Q. All right. FENDLAND: Are you meaning the board still? WALKER: I\"m meaning the board. ROSE: Board meaning the district because the board doesn't do the assessment. WALKER: Fine. Q. But you understand--now you are aware and I don't want to, I mean you are aware when you went on the board early on you were disappointed with the evaluation or assessment system in place\nis that fair to say as a board? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you all didn't approve the assessments that had been or evaluations that had been submitted? A. I believe if my recollection is correct and it may be hazy Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 9 on this because I did attend several board meetings before I was actually sworn on the--- Q. Right. A. board, so which board meeting? Q. Well, whichever--- A. I believe in August before I came on the board is when the National Science Foundation evaluation was not approved. Q. All right. And since that ti--- A. Tabled actually. Q. All right. And since that time it has not been approved has it? The evaluation. A. I do not believe that it has. Q. In fact, since that time no evaluation has been approved by the board has it? No written evaluation has been approved by the board? A. We have received assessment reports that we have accepted on several programs. Q. But now an evaluation report is different from an assessment isn't it? A. Probably. Q. Now you are aware that the Evaluation Department has to abide by progressional standards in performing evaluations are you not? A. I would assume so. Q. That's why you have a P-R-E department. Cobb Court -Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 10 A. Yes. Q. And you would also agree that when people do their own assessments of what they are doing they have in effect a conflict of interest? A. I would agree that that is a possibility. Q. All right. So that if you come to me and ask me how my program is working, I have a self-serving interest in saying to you that my program is working okay if that\"s an assessment? A. It's entirely possible that you could say that\nyes. Q. All right. Now but as a board you would want to at least have an evaluation that has purpose, content, criteria, conclusions and you all at least have adopted a set of evaluation guidelines haven\"t you? FENDLAND: Let me say that\"s a compound question. You went through the criteria and then ask him if he'd adopted it. Q. Right. You all have adopted a set of evaluation criteria haven't you? A. Yes. Q. I see. And just a verbal assessment does not meet the evaluation model does it? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Now have you ever seen any assessment of any program from the prospective of whether that program would or likely would not improve African-American achievement in this Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) . 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY district\nanything in writing? A. Yes. Q. You\"ve seen some. Can you identify it, please? A. The National Science Foundation assessment. Q. Now the National Science Foundation assessment but that wasn't approved by the board was it? A. The original one was tabled by the board. Q. And there has not been one approved since then has it? A. I don't believe it has\nno. 11 Q. Now that National Science Foundation grant was intended to apply at the southwest school, McClellan\nis that correct? A. Ah, I'm not sure. Q. What schools were included within the ambit of the National Science Foundation grant? A. I do not remember the original parameter\nthat was before I came onto the board. I know that the programs that have been developed using that grant money have been put in places, a great many schools. Q. I see. Now are you saying that that, the purpose of that was to improve African-American achievement? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it fair, I mean have you read the grant proposal? A. I don't recall. Q. Have the heard the criticism that the grant proposal did in fact have that as one of its primary purposes but that is no Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 12 longer the primary purpose of the NSF grant\nare you aware of that criticism? Are you aware of that being a criticism? A. Are you making that criticism now? Q. I've made it before. A. Well, if you're making it now then I'm aware of it now. That's the first I've--- Q. But before now you have not? A. No, sir. Q. I see. Now if you're going to, if the program is for the purpose of improving African-American achievement that's different than improving achievement of all students isn't it? A. No, sir. Impr oving the achievement of all students will improve t he achievement of African-American students by definition. Q. Well let me, let me, let me see how that works. If you have white students at the 60 percentile level and black students at the 30 percentile level and they all go up as some figures show they did by say 5 percent--- A. Then they've all improved. Q. but this is not eliminating the disparity gap is it Mr. Rose? A. No, if the gap remains the same it certainly hasn't improved. Q. All right. Now do you agree that the only measuring standard that is in effect that the district has approved is Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box H sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 13 the SAT test, the S-A-T? A. In what sense, I\"m sorry, repeat your question. Q. Are you familiar with the criteria for determining whether or not the gap has been narrowed or eliminated? A. I understand that there are several standardize test and when we receive reports of those scores they're always broken down by race. Q. Well, we\"re talking about the test themselves\nwhat are those test other than the S-A-T? A. There's the ACTAP. there's ah, there\"s the state benchmark exams, district benchmark exams. Q. Now you understood that when we went, when this case was resolved in 1989 there was no ACTAP or Benchmark? A. Yes, sir\nI understand that. Q. And we\"re looking at achieving ah, narrowing the achievement gap that you have to use a consistent standard over a period of years, is that fair? A. That\"s probably the best way to do it\nyes. Q. I see. Now did the board ever decide in a board meeting that it was going to use ACTAP for that purpose of measuring whether or not the gap had been changed or was that something that was just presented to you by Dr. Lesley in the last year or so since you've been on the board? A. I don\"t recall the board approving or disapproving of which standards, which exams are going to be used. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. Do you recall her coming to you once and telling you all that the achievement gap had been eliminated? A. No, sir. 14 Q. Now you had a Research committee doctor, I mean Mr. Rose, do you remember being on that Research Committee? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that Research Committee--do you understand Mrs. Springer participated in it? A. Absolutely, that's where I met Mrs. Springer. Q. Did that Research Committee have any purpose? A. A charge from the board. Q. I see. A. A vague charge. Q. Vague. Now is that Research Committee still in place? A. As far as I know the committee had not been disbanded. Q. Do you recall ever seeing criticism of the Research Committee by Dr. Lesley? A. Yes, I believe I have. Q. Do you remember her stating that we need to get rid of this sucker? A. I remember you reading that in court. Q. Were you surprised at that? A. Surprised, no. Q. Why would you get rid of a Research Committee that the board approved--- cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. I wouldn't. Q. if the purpose--you wouldn\"t? Does the staff have the power by inaction of a committee to overrule the board? A. The authority or the power? Q. Power. A. Yes. Q. It has the power, okay. A. They have the power to do through inactivity to negate policy. 15 Q. That's right\nI see. So they negated the policy in this case by in effect not using or continuing to use the Research Committee after February of this year, isn't that fair to say? A. Restate the question. Q. You haven\"t been to a committee meeting of the Research Committee since February have you? A. I believe we met once in the summer. Q. Did Mrs. Springer get notice of it? A. I don't know. Q. Did you all do anything? A. We talked about how to continue the work of the committee, who would chair it in the interim until Dr. James selected a new chair. Q. Who was present at that meeting? A. Myself, Dr. Lease, Mr. Babbs, there were others. Perhaps the teacher representative whose name escapes me and--- cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 16 Q. But not the Joshua representative. A. No, I don't believe Mrs. Springer was there. Q. But now it couldn't have been the summer if Dr. Lease was there. A. Early summer--- Q. But she was gone before the summer wasn't she? She left in late April--- A. Is that right--- Q. early May isn't it? A. I thought i t, I thought she left in June. Q. She didn't leave until June? A. I thought she left in June. Q. I see. A. I could be mistaken about that or have the date of the meeting wrong for that sake. Q. Did you all keep minutes of that meeting? A. I did not, I don't know if any--- Q. Did anyone? A. I don't recall. Q. All right. Now can you explain why the Research Committee didn't meet between February and the summer other than because Dr. Lesley sai d we want to kill this sucker? A. I don't think that would have had anything to do with it. Q. I see. Well isn't that, didn't she say that the Research Commi ttee activities should be under her program area? Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 17 A. She didn't say it to me\nI don't, I haven't heard her say that. Q. I see. You take the position that the district needs to be focusing upon low performing students, is that right? FENDLAND: Who is you? A. Yeah. WALKER: You personally. A. Me personally? Q. Yes. A. Yes, I've taken that position. Q. And if you want to improve the academic achievement of low performing students would you not agree that you would develop different strategies for relating to them than you would for achieving, for improving the achievement of already high performing students? A. Certainly. Q. And would you not agree that in order for low performing students who are already in high school to be served best that you would have to relate to their foundational needs more seriously than you would the students who are already high performing, highly performing? A. More seriously, what do you mean by that? Q. Well, the students can't read and write. You want to make sure that they can at least do those things before they go into something else? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. Certainly. Q. And you don't have to follow that same approach with already high performing students, isn\"t that correct? A. You don't have to follow the same approach with students who already read and write\ncorrect. 18 Q. All right. Now, so for all practical--you know that most of the students who are low performing are black? A. I know that most of the students are black and so it follows that most of the students who are low performing are black. Q. Well, you understand that most of the white student are upper income, are middle to upper income? A. I assume that to be true. Q. Well you can look at the census tracks can\"t you--A. Yes, sir. Q. and you can tell that? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. And if you were to come up with a system which allowed segregation of students--if you just wanted to say we wanted these classes segregated, all you would have to do is just simply say all the students who were in a certain test score range would be over here [motioning with right hand] but the ones who are in another lower test score range would be over here [motioning with the left hand] and the result would be predictable wouldn't it Mr. Rose? Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 ( 501) 490-0.926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. I'm sorry, are we segregating them by race or by test score? Q. Well, if you wanted--A. I mean by location? 19 Q. if you wanted to do it by race and you know that the test score performance is likely to be a certain way, if you do it you know what the outcome is going to be. In other words if you say we want to use race, if we want to get a racial result but we have to have a nonracial explanation for it, remember now we want a racial result but you can't come out and say we trying, nobody in the district can come out and say we want a racial result, so in order to get a racial result you can look at those characteristics that are most common to the racial groupings and then adopt criteria for placement that most apply to those racial groups. A. I'm sorry Mr. Walker, I quit listening to the question when you implied that there were people in the district who wanted racial results. Q. Oh, you don't believe that? A. No, sir\nI do not. Q. Are you not aware of ah, teachers and administrators referring in some cases to students ah, in racial terms? A. I've never heard it. Q. You've never even heard that the--- A. I've never heard teachers refer to students in racial Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box i4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY terms. Q. But you don\"t hear teachers, you've never heard those reports? A. I hear teacher a lot. Q. Are you in the schools very much? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why are you there? A. Many reasons. My wife is a teacher, my daughter is a student--- Q. Where does your wife teach? A. Chicot. Q. Who is the principal there? A. Jane Harkey. 20 Q. Okay. Now you don't suggest that you hear all the comments between teachers and students do you? A. Absolutely not\nnot for a moment would I suggest that. Q. All right. You\"re not aware of the teacher at Dunbar who said that he was tired of teaching these dumb ass niggers? A. No, sir. Q. All right. So you just don't believe that people still have racial motivation in 2001 do you? A. No, sir\nI believe that they do. Q. But you believe that nobody in this district does? A. I believe nobody is denying children an education because of their race. Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 1f4 Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : (501) 490- 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 21 Q. Well, there are different ways to deny education. You can let all kids be in a classroom, you can let them all hold their hands up but only call on certain kids from time-to-time\nthat's one way of separating kids isn't it? A. Sure. Q. You can give some kids, give all kids homework but you can give some kids verbalized instruction one-on-one and then not give it to the others and there\"s no way that those students have to complain about it\nbut you don\"t believe that kind of thing happens do you? A. I don\"t have any examples of it. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. Q. I see. A. Do you have example of it? Q. Oh, yeah. You can give students extra--A. Have you reported those to the board, sir? Q. Oh, yes\nwe have. A. To the board. Q. Well wait a minute. First of all you understand that our charge is not to report things to you? A. No, sir\nI understand that once a month you have a spot on my agenda that you\"ve never appeared for to report things to me. Q. Do you understand that the purpose that what we have been doing is making our reports to the responsible administrators, Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERT\\F\\ED COPY 22 have you not seen the answers to the interrogatories on all the letters and other correspondence that has gone to the--- A. No, sir\nI have not. Q. Are you not aware of the scores and scores of letters of complaints that we--- A. I am aware that you--- FENDLEY: I'll object to the form, that is not true. We don\"t have any indication of the example you just gave. Q. Mr. Washington testified in court, I don\"t know whether you were there--- A. I did not hear Mr. Washington\"s testimony. Q. Mr. Washington testified that he was aware of the example of the white teacher at Dunbar rushing in to the student lounge and said that I'm just tired of teaching these dumb ass niggers. Now you would expect us not to bring those things to the board would you not if we\"re trying to cooperate with the district and bring--and you would expect us to bring them to the attention of your responsible administrators? A. I would certainly hope that a situation like that would be brought very quickly to the attention of someone who can do something about it. Q. Do you have anything to indicate that we have not been doing that over the past three years? A. Do I have anything to indicate that you have not been Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 23 submitting--no, sir\nI do not have anything to indicate that you have not been submitting those kinds of reports. Q. Have you not been told by Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Babbs that we regularly and frequently brought to their attentions items of discrepancy and racial treatment within the schools? A. I don\"t recall, I don't recall. Q. Or did you assume that because I wasn't coming to the board to talk that we were not bringing things to the attention of your administrators? A. That is my assumption\nyes. Q. Well now, you understood Mr. Rose and I told you once or twice that we were, the purpose that we saw this of the plan was to foist good will and good working relationships upon the parties and to try to work at the lowest possible level to have things resolved so that when they got to the board they would be really serious matters. A. That's reasonable but I take those sorts of racial slurs like you just described as a serious matter. Q. Why should we do that and tell me, not this is a question, why should we bring that to the attention of the board if we bring it to the attention of the administrators and they try to find a way to work it out? A. That's probably, you're probably correct. Q. And why should we put that in the public domain ah, other than to perhaps embarrass a particular_ teacher or characterize Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 24 teach misbehaviors in a way that is not helpful? Why should we try to do anything to put the teachers down? Did I not come before you and say that we were trying to shore up the district rather than to pull it down? A. Yes, you said that. 2001.] WALKER: All right. No more questions. FENDLEY: I have no questions. [The deposition ended at 1:03 p.m., Octobers, * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box H sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 9066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 CERTIFIED COPY SIGNATURE PAGE I, TONY ROSE, hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is a full, true, correct and complete transcript ~/the proceeding [mark the appropriate box): 25 J\\? had at the time of the taking of my deposition. (OR) ( ) subject to the notations on the attached Errata Sheet made by me or at my direction. Date STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ) ss. ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a and for the aforesaid county and state on this of cOcJl\u0026amp;lHA , 2001. Notary Public in /} c\n-/j..__ ~ - day ~ Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box f4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax CERTIFIED COPY 26 - 1 ERRATA SHEET 2 3 (Upon completion, please sign and date this sheet below.) 4 5 Page Line Change: 6 , To: 7 Reason: 8 Page __ Line Change: 9 To: 10 Reason: 11 Page Line Change: 12 To: 13 Reason: 14 Page Line Change: 15 To: 16 Reason: 17 Page Line Change: 18 To: 19 Reason: 20 Page Line Change: 21 To: 22 Reason: 23 Page Line Change: 24 To: 25 Reason: 26 Page Line Change: 27 To: 28 Reason: 29 Page Line Change: 30 To: 31 Reason: 32 Page Line Change: 33 To: 34 Reason: 35 Page Line Change: 36 To: 37 Reason: 38 Page Line Change: 39 To: 40 Reason: 41 42 43 Page of 44 TONY ROSE Date Cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box 14 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-092! - Fax    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 CERTIFIED COPY 27 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, TONY ROSE, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me in stenomask and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to provide any service not available to all parties to the act. My Commission Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72 164-0004 ~hone : (501) 4 90-0066 (501) 490 - 09 26 - Fax\nThis 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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eCobb Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1307","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-10-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1307"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["221 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1713","title":"Court filings concerning responses to order filed October 3, 2001, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories, and PCSSD complaince with Plan 2000","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","School management and organization","School integration","School superintendents","School improvement programs","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning responses to order filed October 3, 2001, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories, and PCSSD complaince with Plan 2000"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1713"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["79 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, motion for order authorizing alternative means for preparation of transcript of the October 2, 2001, hearing; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, two orders; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, notice of audio-visual deposition; District Court, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents; District Court, responses of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' revised requests for admissions; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) brief in support of motion to compet Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) complaince with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline); District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  u.f!JmfRRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT O 3 200l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEI\\IE01 Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * OCT s 2001 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors. * ORDER On October 2, 2001, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address the Joshua Intervenors' motion for definition and clarification of the issues and other relief. For the reasons stated at that hearing and the reasons stated below, the Court made the following rulings on the issues presented in that motion: The Little Rock School District's second set of interrogatories and requests for production to Joshua are quashed except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to the LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing. Joshua is directed to provide the LRSD with any documents from Joshua monitors or members of the Joshua class that support or do not support an assertion that the LRSD has \"misled\" Joshua. If the LRSD cannot appreciate the significance of a witness or exhibit after Joshua provides its witness and exhibit lists to the LRSD for the upcoming hearing, the LRSD may ask Joshua for the significance of that witness or exhibit. The Court expects Joshua to stand by its representation at the hearing that it will provide that information. The parties will submit an agreed protective order governing e-mails requested from the LRSD by Joshua. Concerning Joshua's access to e-mails beyond March 15, 2001 , the LRSD is directed to notify the Court on or before Friday, October 5, 2001 , which of the two options it will choose: Option 1: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; (B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Should the LRSD choose Option 1, it is directed to ensure that it does not delete e-mails without preserving copies for Joshua. Other than the requirement in this paragraph to preserve copies of requested e-mails for Joshua should the LRSD select Option 1, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Administrative Directive EGAD (\"The Use and Deletion of Electronic Mail\"). By agreement of the parties as reflected at the hearing, the LRSD shall be permitted to take the depositions of the Joshua monitors and class representatives at a date and time to be agreed by the parties. If either party requests, the Court will be available to the parties during these depositions to address issues that cannot be resolved without the Court's intervention. The Court requests that the parties provide the Court advance notice of the dates and times for the depositions if the parties wish the Court to be available during the depositions. 2 Joshua is directed to pay the LRSD the amount required for the FOIA requests pursuant to LRSD Administrative Directive KDB (\"Process for Making Requests for Information Under the FOIA\"). Because the LRSD has assured the Court that LRSD Administrative Directive KDB applies to any person requesting FOIA material from the LRSD, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Directive KDB. Counsel for Joshua may, as always, participate in Joshua's continuing monitoring of the LRSD. The participation of counsel for Joshua in the monitoring shall be consistent with the Court's Order entered August 20, 2001 , in which the Court stated: [T]he Court directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case, and to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court. To clarify, counsel for Joshua is .not required to inform counsel for the LRSD before visiting a LRSD campus; however, if counsel for Joshua intends to communicate with district officials and personnel while visiting, counsel for Joshua shall be required to contact counsel for the LRSD as set forth above. The LRSD Student Handbook shall govern issues relating to the presence of counsel for Joshua at individual student disciplinary hearings. r:53, IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 0 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~~:~ CHIEFWDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN iO - 3 --0 I sv__.\\2t.....,_ _ _ FILED . U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT O 4 2001 ~~~ES\\1~~~~ ~ljRK DEPCLeRT\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs . 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT !') ZOO! OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 0 RD ER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court previously scheduled a hearing on Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John . Walker. In lignt of the correspondence received from Clay Fendley, 1 counsel for the LRSD, the contempt hearing will not be necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the contempt hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, is hereby canceled, and the motion for contempt is denied as moot . . -t_{ DATED this -1- day of October, 2001 . r Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON !O -() '-1-tJ I BY D'C ' 1A copy of Mr. Fendley's faxed letter is attached to .. - 516 RECEIVED OCT -9 2001 (1111(1- _ ___ IIIIJORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to Order filed October 3, 2001, states: 1. LRSD objects to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. Joshua has requested all e-mails of the District's administrators and principals. This request is over broad and would place an undue burden on LRSD to respond. Every e-mail created by an administrator or principal is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LRSD also objects to the Court's selection of March 15, 2001 , as a cut-off date for the presentation of evidence for two reasons. First, the term of the Revised Plan did not end until May 31, 2001, the last day for students for the 2000-01 school year. Second, late compliance could constitute substantial compliance, and LRSD should be granted unitary status if it has substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, Section 11. 2. Without waiving these objections, LRSD states that it selects Option 2 with the understanding that documents \"concerning the LRSD's activities withrespect to the Revised Desegregation Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001\" will not be excluded from evidence simply because the documents are dated after March 15, 2001 . As LRSD understands the Court's decision, the Court does not want to hear evidence related to activities undertaken after March 15, 2001 , which should have been performed before March 15, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: C\"{~l-~ }Z:,nristopher Heller ( #81083) ' t}ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 5, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker (hand-delivered) JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 RECEIVED OCT ~ 9 2001 - (IIU:lir ll\u0026BtllD'amtllG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR'ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2001, HEARING For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. This Court's Order of October 3, 2001 quashed LRSD's second set ofinterrogatories and requests for production \"except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing\" of October 2, 2001 . 2. Immediately after the October 2, 2001 hearing, counsel for LRSD approached the court reporter about obtaining a transcript and was advised that a hearing transcript could not be prepared before the November 19, 2001 hearing due to preexisting obligations. Counsel asked the court reporter if someone else could transcribe the tape or if LRSD could obtain a tape of the proceeding and have it transcribed. We were advised that the court reporter was not authorized to release tapes of proceedings. 3. This Court has inherent authority to control proceedings before it and authorize some alternate means of having the transcript prepared prior to the November 19, 2001 hearing, including authorizing another reporter to transcribe the tape or authorizing release of the tape to LRSD to have it transcribed. LRSD would agree to provide all requesting parties a copy of the transcript prepared from the tape and to return the tape to the court reporter so an official transcript can be prepared at her convenience. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court issue an Order authorizing the court reporter to employ some alternate means of preparing a transcript of the October 2, 2001 hearing, and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- BY. C  p er Heller (#8108 John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 3 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED, E~ 'i,11m~'ilt~SAS OCT 15 toot QfflCECI DESBH6A1Dlld_H_IIIE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 1 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ... ~ W a~RMACK, QERK WESTERN DIVISION J~  RMN . _ Sy: OE1' Cl11llt LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL J\\.1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 The Joshua Intervenors object to the response of the LRSD because it seeks to condition the Court's Order. The Court's Order was clear and unambiguous and should not be modified absent compelling cause which cause is stated for the record. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this A day of October, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201~ Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Jo 1  Walker (._/ -2- QC I J  2001 FILED .. , .IJtOF IIEREGATION MONITORlf~G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 17 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO. 1,etal., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW -.ECEIVEt  OCT 18 200\\ QfflCE OF oES6EMlll talilllNG The Court is in receipt of Little Rock School District's response [docket no. 3517] to this Court's Order [docket no. 3515] filed October 3, 2001, as well as Joshua Intervenors' response in opposition [docket no. 3520] to LRSD's response. LRSD states in its response that it objects to \"being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court.\"1 LRSD also states that it objects to the March 15, 2001 cut-off date for the presentation of evidence. The Court notes LRSD's objections. The Court acknowledges that LRSD may have evidence concerning its activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") subsequent to March 1In its October 3, 2001 Order [docket no. 3515], the Court directed LRSD to choose from two options as follows: Option 1- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date.; Option 2- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; and correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Without waiving its objections, LRSD has informed the Court that it selects Option 2. ,. ' , 15, 2001 which may bear on the issue of whether LRSD has complied with the Revised Plan. The Court gave LRSD an opportunity to elect to present this evidence and LRSD has now rejected this opportunity. Should the Court ultimately sustain Joshua's objections to the Compliance Report and deny unitary status to LRSD, LRSD may in the future, when circumstances ~arrant, file additional motions in support of unitary status that would include compliance activities subsequent to March 15, 2001. The Court wishes to reiterate to LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. On March 15, 2001, LRSD filed its Notice and Compliance Report (\"Compliance Report\") [ docket no. 341 0], representing to the Court that as of that date, the district had achieved unitary status. Specifically~ LRSD stated: LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan.2 The Court reminds LRSD that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshua's objections to this Compliance Report. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshua's activities- Joshua's activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. It is the Compliance Report, and Joshua's objections thereto, which are now before the Court, and upon which the Court will focus. The Compliance Report represents that LRSD had complied with certain requirements of the Revised Plan; however, the evidence presented to date by Joshua demonstrates otherwise. The Court anticipates that LRSD will present evidence that the representations in the Compliance 2Docket no. 3410 (\"Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order\"), Paragraph No. 1. 2 Report are accurate and truthful. The truthfulness and accuracy ofLRSD's representations in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report could have bearing on the Court's disposition of the unitary status question. The Court assumes, without deciding, that if the district is in compliance, good faith will not be an issue.3 However, should the Court find compliance in some areas but a failure of compliance in others, the district's good faith will determine the extent to which the Court may withdraw its monitoring activities. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,491 (1992) (\"A court's discretion to order the incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal [is] . . . whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree . . .. \"). THEREFORE, the Court's Order [docket no. 3515] of October 3, 2001 is hereby clarified to bring into focus for LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. -tr~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS / I DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF JU~' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3Toe Court is mindful that the district has promised good faith in the revised plan: \"LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis ofrace, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.\" LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of January 16, 1998 at 2.1 [Exhibit A to docket no. 3107]. 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN ID-- \\1-0\\ sv_sf( ____ ~ECEIVED OCT 19 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 7 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:M_E_S-'--~~f..J..A~~44-~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") for - approval of the ODM budget for 2001-02. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the ODM budget for 2001-02. fr..__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~#A~~ HIEFJUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULJ: 58 AND/O~a) FRCP ON JO\"'( \"rf \"0 I 5y_V-'--\\ __ _ 1 The ODM communicated the proposed budget to the Court in a letter dated September 25, 2001. See docket no. 3509 [September 28, 2001 Order giving parties 15 days to object to the ODM budget for 2001-02], attachment. ra 5 2 2 10 - 30 -o I I .'30Jwt f, -c.l~- i-;J }r-e1 rVJ ~J:Je, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN.DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866RECE\\VED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Orr\\CtOf OESEGRf.GA1\\0ll lAOmt0mi\u0026 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Exhibit 1 attached) by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua hand-delivered responses to LRSD on September 24, 2001. 2. Joshua's responses (Exhibit 2 attached) were unverified and otherwise failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff outlined the deficiencies in a letter dated September 27, 2001 (Exhibit 3 attached), and requested that Joshua supplement its responses. 3. Joshua has not responded to Plaintiffs letter of September 27, 2001. 4. Joshua should be compelled to provide responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Joshua attached a copy of Plaintiffs September 27, 2001, letter to their Motion for Definition and Clarification of the Issues and for Other Relief. This Court held a hearing on that Motion on October 2, 2001, and issued an Order the following day. While the Court quashed Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, it did not address Joshua's responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full, complete and verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status; that Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501_) 376-2011 BY:_....,q.::c:..:;_::......::t:....,;,__J~=...,,..\u003cC\u003eo\u003c...f,.-4.---H_,.__ 2 hristopher Heller (#810 3). hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#9218 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by t.if _.. mail on October 25, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dcs-mot-compcl-clarification.wpd ,, 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL 8-9- o I PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGA TORJES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the fo ll owing Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm , associa tion, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether foce to face, by telephone, mail , personal deli very, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" EXHIBIT Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the tenn \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a documen t is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a-request for identification or production is in you r co ntrol , but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession - or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, bu t is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address( es), occupation, job title; and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc .) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identi ty of such 2 The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. fNTERROGATORY NO. I: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. fNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representati ve and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed - monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revi sed Desegregation and Education Plan . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4 fNTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June IO, 1999, on July, I, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, 1999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, I 999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communica tions between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March I 5, 2000. fNTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial di sparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD; (c) Whether LRSD's response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for ra ising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD; ( c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents per1aining to yo ur response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racia l discrimination in the imposition of discipline. fNTERROGA TORY NO. I 0: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions nre of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March I 5, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to you r response to the preceding inte "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1732","title":"Court filings concerning Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents by Supt. Les Carnine regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status, requests for admissions to Superintendant James, and status report regarding Baker Elementary School","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-09-26/2001-09-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School superintendents","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents by Supt. Les Carnine regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status, requests for admissions to Superintendant James, and status report regarding Baker Elementary School"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1732"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Joshua intervenors' requests for admissions propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, order; District Court, motion for withdrawal as counsel; District Court, plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order; District Court, entry of appearance; District Court, Joshua intervenors' revised requests for admissions propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, Joshua intervenors' requests for admissions to Superintendant James; District Court, status report regarding Baker Elementary School; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for definition and clarification of the issues and for other relief; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4: 82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNJGHT, ET AL. !,,.t ~ '\\ ) RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2001 lJfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNQ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED TO SUPT. LES CARNINE Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Request for Admissions Propounded to Superintendent Les Carnine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 1: You did not establish a committee of staff members to regularly meet with the Joshua Intervenors in order to discuss compliance issues. REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 2: You represented to the public meeting Little Rock School District Board of Directors and the Joshua\"Intervenors that the commitments of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 3: You did not ask the Arkansas Department of Education to assist the Little Rock School District in meeting its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan between March, 1998 and March, 2001. 1 REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 4: There is no writing from you which reflects that you requested the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 5: You and District counsel, Christopher Helle.c requested the Arkansas Department of Education to forgive the Little Rock School District's indebtedness to the Arkansas Department of Education of the 20 million dollar loan. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 6:  You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented to the Department of Education Director, Ray Simon, that the Joshua Intervenors approved the District's efforts to obtain loan forgiveness. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 7: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented during the negotiations with Arkansas Department of Education on loan forgiveness that you and counsel Heller were authorized to represent the interest of the Joshua Intervenors. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 8: The subject ofloan forgiveness was inappropriate for the Little Rock School District Board of Direc!?rs to address in an executive session under the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 9: The Little Rock School District Board of Directors never passed a motion or resolution regarding the District 's requested loan forgiveness to Arkansas Department of Education. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 10: Neither you nor the the Little Rock School District Board of Directors ever determined in a public meeting of the Board that the remediation . of achievement disparitiys as contemplated by the original Settlement Decree and the rulings of the Court of Appeals was impossible to achieve. 2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 : The Ombudsperson did not have any role in the development of policies, programs or procedures with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) By~nf-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, p~th is ~ day of September, 2001 . Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III \"~ Mr. Christopher Heller Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 200 West Capitol Avenue 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM . One Union National Plaza  124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones; Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ JOSHUA INTERVENORS INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO SUPT. LES CARNINE ~t41.Ul.. RECEi E. SEP 2 8 200\\ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to Superintendent Les Carnine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the contemplated involvement of the Joshua Intervenors in the development of policies, programs and procedures with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Was the contemplated involvement referred to in_ Interrogatory No. 1 reduced to writing? If so, attach a copy of such writing and proof that such writing was delivered to Joshua Intervenors' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If you contend that the identified writing, if any, is included 1 within the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, please specify the pages and paragraphs thereof which reflect the contemplated involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: What was the contemplated involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ross with respect to the development of policies, programs and procedures as contemplated by the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Was that contemplated involvement reduced to writing and shared with Joshua counsel or anyone else? INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Specify by number or letter, or both, each policy, program or procedure that was developed in fulfillment of the commitments of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Please attach copies of each such policy, program or procedure in response to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please state whether the Joshua Intervenors' counsel sought to be involved in the compliance committee activities. Do you have any writings which reflect such effort and your responses to same? Please attach copies of both. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Did you create a written de_~egregation compliance program which included standards identified on pages 19 and 20 of the revised plan. If so, please state how the compliance program was implemented identifying the person or persons responsible for its implementation, the date they were appointed to the position and whether these persons were members of the District staff Also please identify all compliance standards that were adopted for student achievement, discipline, and evaluation of programs identified in the revised plan. Also identify the person or persons responsible for monitoring implementation of the compliance standards, the date he/she (or they) were appointed to the position and whether these persons were members of the District staff. 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: In your opinion, does the Compliance Plan contemplate periodic monitoring reports to be developed by LRSD staff regarding the implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, please state whether you and/or members of your staff produced any monitoring reports regarding the District's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Were you made aware by Joshua Intervenors' counsel that Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, was constructing a plan which upon implementation would result in a set of in-school racially segregated class assignment programs? Please state the date you were so informed and what actions you took in response to those suggestions. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Were you aware of the professional conflicts regarding - implementation of the revised plan, remediation of achievement disparities and program evaluation which existed between Dr. Bonnie Lesley and other staff members, notably, Dr. Kathy Lease, Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Mr. Junious Babbs and Dr. Marion I:.acy? If so, please describe in detail each of those conflicts and duration of each and what steps you took to remedy them. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Was the District, in your opinion, obliged to maintain lower teacher pupil ratios in the former Incentive schools than in the more racially mixed schools. If so, please set forth any policies, programs and procedures which reflect that obligation. Also state whether the District was obliged to maintain greater resources of staff, materials, and programs in the former Incentive schools than in the other schools. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: In your opinion was the District obliged to develop policies, programs and procedures by which to remediate the academic achievement as that 3 existed between African American children in a class and other children. If so, please provide writings of each policy, program and procedure that was specifically developed to address remediation of African American students. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 : Were you aware of any racial disparities that existed in the LRSD during your tenure n the LRSD during your tenure? Please identify each disparity and what actions you specifically took to address each disparity by date, action taken, activities involved and any meetings which reflect that action. 1) INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Did you ever inform the ADE of any actions of the District which had a disparate impact upon African American students? Were you aware that the State of Arkansas was obliged to monitor the disparities referenced to above and to comply with the terms of what is known as the \"Allen\" letter. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: With respect to the loan forgiveness discussions with the ADE, please state in full detail who was involved in the negotiations, the dates, the positions that were taken by each participant. State whether Joshua counsel ~as involved with State counsel where negotiations took place with respect to loan forgiveness. Identify the Arkansas State Senators by name and residence and officials of the ADE who were involved in the loan forgiveness. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state the involvement of Dr. Steven Ross and Dr. Terrence Roberts with respect to the subject ofloan forgiveness. Also state Drs. Ross and Robert's positions regarding loan forgiveness and how you obtained that knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did any LRSD board member request for you to seek loan forgiveness in a public meeting? If so, state the name of the board member and state the date of 4 such request. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Did you have private meetings with board members in order to obtain authority for your negotiations with the ADE regarding the loan forgiveness. If so, identify the Board members, date of the private meetings, places where the meetings were held and attach any notes you made regarding those private meetings. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Did you ever inform the Joshua Intervenors that you and the Board were going to address the subject of loan forgiveness with the ADE. If so, please j identify each writing that was exchanged between you and/or Mr. Chris Heller and each of the other parties to the private meetings which were held about the subject of the AD E's loan forgiveness regarding the LRSD. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please attach a copy of each identified writing in response to each of the preceding interrogatories, numbered -I through 19. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State how the District informed students of the Ombudsperson, his availability and role with respect to student ~iscipline and parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 : Please explain whether the Ombudsperson was to have an ongoing relationship with the Joshua Intervenors with respect to investigating parent and student race based complaints in all areas of school operations? If the Ombudsperson was not the individual to investigate and address parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment, please identify the person or persons to whom these complaints were to be referred. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State the amount-of the District's budget that was used for implementation of Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 5 identifying the amount for each section INTERROGATORY NO. 23 : Did you or some other person or persons designated by you specifically implement compliance standards in order to comply with Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, what are those standards and where can they be found. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State the amount of the District's budget that was used for implementation of Sections 2.7, 2.7.1 and Sections 5.1 through 5.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan identifying the amount for each section. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Did you some other person or persons designated by you specifically implement compliance standards in order to substantially comply with Sections 2.7, 2. 7 .1 and Sections 5. I through 5. 5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, what are those standards and where can they be found. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Did you, any member of your compliance committee or any other person designated by you determine any area of noncompl~ance at any time during the term of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, state the area of noncompliance, the date it was detected and all reasonable steps taken you, members of the compliance committee or any other person designated by you to correct the noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance. Finally, jf you indicate that a compliance program was developed and implemented, please also advise whether modifications were ever made to the program. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please attach a copy of each identified writing in response to each of the preceding interrogatories, numbered 20 through 26. Respectfully submitted, 6 ' I  I~ .e John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) By:~'~-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, ~ t~ay of September, 2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III  ~ Mr. Christopher Heller Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings ..., l Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 200 West Capitol Avenue 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 7 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark IJagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 u.frJJRl~QR EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 6 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~A_MES{/ ~RMACK, '7rERI y. l \\ l [\\ /\\A A DEPCLERJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2001 UFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 0 RD ER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John Walker . A hearing  on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no 1ater than October 5, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no 1ater than noon on October 12, 2001. The Court advises counsel that it will not be available to conduct this hearing beyond October 16, 2001. IT IS SO ORDERED this o4(;~day of September, 2001. SUSAN WE~GHT Chief United States District Judge :3 5 0 7 , . RECEIVED - SEP 2 7 2001  OFFICE OF \\lESEGREGATION MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General M. SamuelJones, IIl Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 September 26, 2001 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Sammye I. Taylor Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682 -1320 Direct Facsimile: (501) 682-2591 E-mail: SarnmyeT@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; USDC; 4:82CV866SWW Dear Counsel: I have transferred from the Civil Department to the Medicaid Fraud Unit of the Office of Attorney General, and am therefore filing a motion to withdraw as counsel ofrecord in the captioned case. The file remains with Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier for further handling. Thank you. SLT/ale Enclosure Cordially yours, Chief Barrister 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http ://www.ag.state.ar.us/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2001 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS I, Sammye L. Taylor, hereby move to withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education in the above-captioned matter. Please allow Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier of the Office of the Attorney General to serve a counsel ofrecord. WHEREFORE, I, -Sammye L. Taylor, respectfully request that this motion be granted and that the Court direct the clerk of the court to remove me as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Respectfully Submitted, / BMys.ia:mm\u0026yeLay1.cr~#831~ Chief Barrister 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sammye L. Taylor, certify that on ~of September, 2001 , I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~-~ sammyeL.Tay 2 IN THE UNJTED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 1 2001 OFflCr: Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS  \u003e Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm, association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded - material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address( es), occupation, job title; and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such person known or reasonably believed by you to have present possession, custody, or control thereof, 2 and a brief description of the subject matter thereof, all with sufficient particularity to request - its production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (iii) As to a communication, shall mean the date of the communication, the type of communication (telephone conversation, meeting, etc.), the place where the communication took place, the identity of the person who made the communication, the identity of each person who received the communication, and of each person present when it was made and the subject matter discussed; (F) \"Pertaining to\" Shall mean constituting, embodying, ansmg out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified; (G) To \"describe in detail\" Shall mean to provide with respect to any act, occurrence, transaction, event, statement, communication or conduct (hereinafter collectively, \"act\") all facts concerning any such act known to Plaintiffs after due inquiry, including but not limited to a description of each act, the date, the location, and the identify of each person involved; (H) \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope; The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. 3 If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim -  of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify all persons you intend to call as a witness at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all documents you intend to introduce as an exhibit at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and persons in any way cC\u003ennected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and persons in any way connected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify and describe m detail all communications between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all 9 communications between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: For each expert witness that you may call as a witness at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001, please provide a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons therefor; identify and describe in detail the documents, communications, data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; provide the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness withing the preceding ten (10) years; provide the compensation to be paid for investigation and testimony; and provide a listing of all other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four ( 4) years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all contemporaneous time records maintained by you pertaining to your monitoring ofLRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all information provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or 5 consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised 9 Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify all LRSD employees who have provided you information or documents without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify and describe in detail all oral communications between you and LRSD employees since August 17, 2001 , pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which took place outside the presence of counsel for LRSD. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each Joshua monitor identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, please: (a) describe in detail all education, training and experience that you believe qualifies them to serve as monitors; (b) describe in detail all monitoring activities undertaken by them, including the dates, times and locations where monitoring occurred and the subject matter of the monitoring; and ( c) describe in detail each and every instance where the monitoring revealed what you contend was noncompliance or bad faith implementation of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to 9 your monitoring of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, including but not limited to any notes or summaries of monitoring activities. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: You allege in your response to Request for Production No. 1 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production ofDocuments that Dr. Les Carnine and Chris Heller requested that you not publish any monitoring reports. Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and Dr. Carnine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Carnine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that the Compliance Committee refused to share quarterly reports produced by the School Services Division, please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that \"Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Carnine and Hellerregarding desegregation accomplishments.\" Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were 7 misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and 9 Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD employee pertaining to the semester by semester discipline statistics referred to in your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatori "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1095","title":"\"Joshua's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status\"\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-09-21"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["\"Joshua's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status\"\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1095"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["79 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nlN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED er SEP 2 4 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAJNTIFF V. CASE NO.4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS JNTER VENO RS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. JNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is a.ware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the tenn of LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons pe1formed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1- Joy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD dming the term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors' counsel, in response to and at the request of Supe1intendent Les Carnine and District counsel Chiis Heller, in an eff01t to be cooperative with them did not publish any monit01ing rep01ts of the concerns which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written communications from Heller, Carnine and Walker - Comt Exhibits 558 and 566. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD \u0026amp; term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4: Please see Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agreement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carnine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Paiker that contain correspondence and other documentation from Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the Maich 15, 2001 Compliance Rep01t. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2- Superintendent Carnine and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementaiy School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segregation of boys from girls as a punitive measure\ndouble funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools\nthe proposed closing of Mitchell Elementaiy school\nthe closing of Ish School under the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish Instructional Resource Center\nPulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate treatment of African American students and staff, dispaiate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial slurs and racial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and disc1irninatory learning environment\nHall High School involving discriminat01y leaining environment, dispaiate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement\nCloverdale Middle School involving discriminato1y learning environment, dispaiate discipline and lack of academic achievement\nthe creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson\ndiscriminat01y practices involving the removal of the principal at J.A. Fair High School\nthe promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatmy conduct towaid African American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)\nMabelvale Middle School involving discrirninato1y leaining environment, dispaiate discipline and lack academic achievement\nDunbai Middle School involving dispaiate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and determination of discipline decisions, assault of student by staff member, use of racial slurs by staff and lack of academic - 3- achievement\nForest Heights Middle School involving disparate discipline, discriminatory discipline practices\nWakefield Elementaty involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminato1y learning environment\nForest Park Elementary involving discriminato1y learning environment, discriminato1y practices regarding the participation in field nip activities, racial comments by members of the PT A\nMeadowcliff Elementary involving disparate discipline\nWestern Hills Elementaiy involving retaliatmy treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of IEPs and education of Afiican American students\nRockefeller Elementaiy involving dispaiate discipline of students and staff\nHorace Mann involving disc1iminat01y grading practices, discriminatmy discipline rnles established at the school level, dispaiate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member\nCentral High School involving discriminato1y practices in student patticipation in extIacmTicular activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock comi, student council, disparate discipline practices, one race AP classes and favoring white students in these classes, lack of academic achievement and favo1ing white students in awaids and activities\nParkview involving discriminato1y practices in counseling services, dispaiate discipline, discriminato1y practices in student paiticipation in extracurricular activities (band and choir), discriminato1y teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement\nMcClellan involving unequal facilities, staff, leaining evironment, resomces, and staff use of racial epitaphs\nseveral incidents of discriminatory assignment practices\nnumerous incidents of the District's failure to properly implement IEPs of Afiican American students\nand Safety -4- and Security Director Bobby Jones' staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer o. 4. Documents are located in files entitled \"John W. Walker\" in the offices of Junious Babbs, Superintendent Carnine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Washington. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Court Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. - ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from District officials. Superintendent Carnine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to counsel for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Court Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbs's letter of August 31, 2001, CoUit Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pe1taining to the format or content of LRSD 's -5- Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6: There were no communications between the pruties regarding the fonnat or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. Disti-ict officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the fo1mat or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPO SE 0. 3: Refer to response given in Intenogat:01y Answer o. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pe1taining to the fo1mat or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Repo11 filed Mruch 15, 2000. ANSWER 0. 7: There were no communications between the pruties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSD's Inte1im Compliance Repo1t filed on March 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0.4: Please produce all documents pe1taining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSD's Interim Compliance Rep01t filed Mruch 15, 2000. RESPONSE 0. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogato1y Answer o. 7. TERROGA TORY~: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6- I disparities revealed by your monitoring during the te1m of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD ( c) Whether LRSD 's response to the racial dispaiity complied with the Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A SWER 0. 8: Please refer to the Joshua's Response in Opposition to LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. Also see Intenogato1y Response No. 4. District officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to share the quaiterly rep01ts which were produced by the School Services division of the District. These repo1ts were indicative of the racial disparities that remained present in the District. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carnine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Carnine and Heller regaiding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the District did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors' counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD - 7 - Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Superintendent Carnine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshua's 1ight to contest in a vigorous manner the District's release from court jurisdiction after the District's report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number oftimes Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Intenogatory regarding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5: Refer to response given in Intenogatmy Answer No. 8. Also see Comi Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all incidents of racial disc1imination in the imp_osition of discipline which occmTed dUiing the term of LR.SD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD ( c) Whether LR.SD' s response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8- I  ANSWER NO. 9: Joshua received notice of numerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory o. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Supe1intendent Carnine with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Court Exhibit 567. There were numerous racial incidents during this pe1iod including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fair High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Mann, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Carver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementaiy schools. Many of these cases were refened to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to Intenogat01y Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Intenogato1y regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6: See the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Court Exhibits 567, 568 and attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial disc1imination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9- ANSWER NO. 10: LRSD did not adopt specific compliance standards for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standard at particular schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSD's failure in this regard diminishes Joshua's ability to segregate instances of racial dispa:iity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline repo1ts. Fmthermore, it is our opinion that when African American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quaiterly reports which confirm the continued dispaiity were withheld by Districts officials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding intenogato1y. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in Intenogat01y o. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and desc1ibe all incidents involving student discipline which you refened to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n( c) Whether LRSD' s response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10- ANSWER NO. 11: Joshua handled a number of the cases involving student discipline during this pe1iod for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman., James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based mistreatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were refened to the District's Ombudsman: 1) Millard Russey at For est Heights Middle School\n2) Alex O'Neal at Forest Heights Middle School\n3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School\n4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School\n5) Earnest Rump at Southwest Middle School\n6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodiiquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School\n8) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann Middle School\n9) Mann Middle School's rnles regarding participation in extracunicular activities which are diiven by citizenship grades\n10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student, Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher\n11) Christopher Munay at Cloverdale Middle School\n12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary\n13) Elwin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary\n-11- 14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann\n15) Marcus Henry at Pulaski Heights Middle\n16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School\n17) Cedric Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School\n19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementary\n20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith\n21) Felicia Duhart at Wes tern Hills Elementary\n22) Brian Gray at Horace Mann\n23) April Hayes at Par-.l\u0026lt;View\n24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementary\n25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle\n26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School\n27) ---Peel at Forest Heights\n28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School\n29) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann\n30) CIC program implementation (suspensions expunged for wl:te students but not for black students who paiticipated in this program)\nand 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the 1ight to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO ~: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. Refenals were made dming these communications. INTERROGATORY 0. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which supp01t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 12: The program, policies and procedures identified in the Compliance Plan and the March 2000 and 2001 repo1ts ar~in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regard to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Intenogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshua's Response in Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding intenogat01y. RESPONSE NO. 9: See Intenogatory No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Court Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- support your objection to LRSD 's compliance with Section 2.5 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in Interrogatories umbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding inte1TOgatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Interrogato1yNo. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Court Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY 0. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should hav~ yielded data on particpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the CoU1t to assess compliance. The LRSD 's March 200 and 2001 rep01ts do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 11: Please produce all documents in the preceding intenogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 11: Same as Interrogatory o. 14. -14- INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which suppo1t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 15: Refer to Comt Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001.(Testimony regarding his lack of sufficient resources and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0. 12: Please produce all documents in the preceding inteITogato1y. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Inte1Togat01y o. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which suppo1t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 16: Compliance with Section 6 of t.he revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Comt to assess compliance. The LRSD 's March 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They repo1t that these cases are refeITed to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents. (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District replied indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15- preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in Intenogatmy o. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" and/or the \"Assessment Plan\" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Repo1i filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and desc1ibe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention\n(b) state when you detennined that they did not comply\n( c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\nand, ( d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2. 7.1 was to r~ach all academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshua's ability to respond to this intenogat01y is hindered by the District's failure to set forth one clear list of all of the programs implemented to comply with Section 2. 7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cuniculum at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAIPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie 1itchell, -16- Bonnie Lesley and Supe1i.ntendent Carnine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding intenogatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See transc1ipt of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: District officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve counsel for Joshua in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pe1iaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsel's complaints regarding non involvement in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your paiiicipation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following documents and notices were sent by the -17- District without request: District officials provided Board policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quarterly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Biracial Committee meetings. Notices regarding Cha:r.ter School Committee and agenda. Joshua counsel and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a pa.it of our ongoing monit01ing activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pe1taining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to 8.2 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see CoUit Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua further reserves the 1ight to supplement the answers provided herein. Respectfully submi!ted, JOHN W WALKER, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) ~71-4187 ) .~ i / By:____,~s--f.,,_,.,,_.~,...:i..r__.... . ---++'\"-=--\"--=----\"- J\n/ -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed,,.postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this __2L_ day of~( 2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 -19 - Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Walker \"-\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1719","title":"Court filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response to the plaintiff's motion to cite Joshua counsel for contempt of Court; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for further enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, Joshua's answers to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-09-04/2001-09-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response to the plaintiff's motion to cite Joshua counsel for contempt of Court; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for further enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, Joshua's answers to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1719"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS Jl Iv.lRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SEP ---6 2001 OffiCE Of DESEGREGATION MONffORIMG KATHERINE KNIGHT WRIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS~ MOTION TO CITE JOSHUA COUNSEL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT The Little Rock School District, through their counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, Jr. , filed a motion on August 23, 2001. Therein, they renewed by reference an earlier motion which had been dismissed by the Court on August 17, 2001 without prejudice. The crux of the LRSD's motion is that Joshua counsel, John W. Walker, .violated the following ruling of the Court: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, that's true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that Regard, even though you are a public institution. The present motion certifies the District's belief that \"Attorney Walker violated the courts ' orders ... by appearing at the office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley on the morning of August 23, 1  - - - - - ________ .:___ ___ _______________ _ 2001 .\" There is no other contention in the renewed motion for contempt. The respondents, therefore, respectfully submit that the court has not entered an order prohibiting Joshua counsel or his associates from \"appearing at the office\" of any school district official in either of the three school districts. The District submitted the affidavits of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesley's secretary, to support its motion. Neither addresses the issue of whether Mr. Walker violated a court order by appearing in the building. There is no question that Mr. Walker )) \"appeared\" at the building. It again submitted no affidavits in support of its earlier, now renewed motion. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to address the issue of whether 'tvfr. Walker is in contempt of court because he appeared at the Ish IRC on August 23, 2001. The issue for the future is whether he is in contempt whenever he enters upon a Little Rock School District property without the prior approval of either or both Messrs. Heller and Fendley. The Court has not entered such an Order. Accordingly, there can be no contempt upon which to base a show case order because there is no antecedent Order denying entry upon LRSD property to the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors. The relief that is being sought is inconsistent with the claimed violation, i.e. appearing at the office of a school official. The relief sought, in addition to sanctions, is that Mr. Walker be refrained from any communication with District personnel and that he be ordered to submit all requests for LRSD documents to counsel for LRSD. There is no authority for such broad relief Nor is there a brief in support of the motion. The Court is asked to treat the other brief in the dismissed motion for contempt as its brief for this new action. That is, of course, inapposite. But however it is viewed, there is no basis in law argued for denying class counsel entry upon the very 2 school premises that he is directed by the Court of Appeals, and expected by this Court, to monitor. As Judge Wollman noted in his concurring opinion in the November 14, 1991 Eighth Circuit decision vacating her honor's opinion: \"I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their commitments 'to desegregation.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District, et al., 949 F2d 253, 259 (8tl' Cir., 1991). We submit that our presence is required both to fulfill our class representative obligations and to assure that class concerns regarding implementation of the court orders will be effectively addressed. Messrs. Heller \u0026 Fendley would, and by their motion seek to, effectively limit, if not end, Joshua monitoring of the parties agreement. That is another way by which they advise the LRSD - that it may be brought into compliance. In other words, 'keep Walker out of the schools and the case will end.' They are badly mistaken. The rule of law governs rather than the identity of the litigators. Joshua counsel submit their own affidavits in order to demonstrate their actions and their respect of the Court and its Order, mindful at the same time, of what appears to be the never ending defiance of law by Little Rock School District officials. Joshua requests that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing upon the motion and thereafter dismiss it. ctfully submitted, W- Walker, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 3 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax)  By{}JLi-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do. hereby state the foregoing response has been sent to all counsel of record on this 4th day of Septeniber, 2001 via United States mfili pasta e prepfild. (_ alker - Bar No. 64046 4 uFILED EASTE:kt g:if~:g COURT ARKANSAS . I  SEP O 4 2001 '-\u003c MEsw f:.. ,.  McCoRM m THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT -~ C( :-  EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS L :  ,..,.__ WESTERN DMSION - --=-\",:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO - ~ i\\'lmeft DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL.  *~ ,1'11:U )l MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERrnE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP - \u0026 2.m Off\\CEOF: DESEGREGAilON. MOtmOW,\\\\I AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER ST ATE OF ARKANSAS ) - COUNTY OF ~0YLO {ce, jss. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes the affi.ant, Joy C. Springer, under oath, and states the following: 1. I am employed by the law firm, John W. Walker, P.A. I direct and engage in that offices school desegregation monitoring activities regarding the three Pulaski county public school districts. 2. I have regularly visited the !sh Instructional Resource Center (\"IRC\") at its present location since it was established as a part of the ongoing monitoring responsibility of the Joshua Intervenors. At times, I have attended meetings at the IRC both at LRSD officials and at my own initiative. My meetings with IRC staff have usually been professional. 3. On some of my monitoring visits, I have been accompanied by other office staff of John 1 W. Walker, P.A. , including lVIr. Walker himself We have all been generally welcomed, upon our meetings and visits, by LRSD officials. 4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts which occurred on August 23, 2001. On the morning of August 23 , 2001, Mr. Walker and I went to the IRC office for a monitoring visit. Prior to our arrival, we discussed visiting with Ms. Joanna Harris, who is in the Little Rock Comprehensive Science and Math Achievement offices (LRCSMA), to obtain a schedule of their activities for the year and to obtain Dr. Bonnie Lesley's vitae which we had requested on August '}J 20'h and August 22nd . 5. Mr. Walker and I rode to the IRC together. Upon arrival to the building, Mr. Walker received a telephone call and he was on the telephone when I exited the vehicle. 6. I entered the building and signed in shortly after 8:00 a.m. There was no one at the reception area. First, I decided to go into Ms. Harris' offices to say hello and obtain the information that Mr. Walker and I had.discussed obtaining. Ms. Harris had not come into her offices. There was no one in her offices. 7. I returned to the hall area, sat down and made some notes. I noticed Ms. Anita Gilliam exit from the offices of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and we (Ms. Gilliam and I) exchanged greetings. 8. After approximately five minutes, Mr. Walker came into the building. We went into the reception area of Dr. Bonnie Lesley's offices and were greeted by Ms. Anita Gilliam. I heard Mr. Walker inform Ms. Gilliam that we were there to pick up a copy of Dr. Lesley's vitae. I heard her indicate that she placed it in the mail the previous day. Mr. Walker then said, \"it should be no problem for you to give us another copy of it\" . Ms. Gilliam, then, after a pause, gave us a copy of the vitae. 2 8. After a quick review of the document, N.fr. Walker then asked, \"Is this all of it.\" And he further stated \"I am sure her vitae is more extensive than this.\" Ms. Gilliam left the reception room, went into Dr. Lesley's office and closed the door. While we waited for Ms. Gilliam to return, I observed Iv.fr. Walker take copies available to the public of the \"standards and benchmarks\" for grades one through eight. 9. Ms: Gillian1 came out of Dr. Lesley's office and informed us that Dr. Lesley was talking to district counsel and that she, Ms. Gilliam, would get back with us shortly. 10. As N.fr. Walker was leaving the office and I remained in the office, N.fr. Walker then asked Ms. Gilliam if there was any information to supplement the instructional division's agenda items that were on the school board's agenda for that night. She did not answer. Mr. Walker then left the office. 11. Ms. Gilliam went into Dr. Lesley's office again and closed the door. I sat down and waited for a few minutes for Ms. Gilliam to come out of Dr. Lesley's office. Ms. Gilliam did not return. 12. I left the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices and joined N.fr. Walker who was in the hallway. We took our usual course for monitoring and circled the building. 13 . While we were on the math and science hallway, I saw Ms. Gilliam come over to the hall as if she was watching what we were doing. It appeared that she had come over to follow us around the building. I have not previously observed her follow us around the building during previous visits to the IRC. 14. I returned to reception area ofDr. Lesley's offices about ten minutes later at which time Ms. Gilliam told me that the agenda was all the information that was available. I did not 3 ask to speak with Dr. Lesley. However, Dr. Lesley came out of her office and volunteered that she may have copies of the grant proposals and that I may already have them too. She looked at a piece of paper and said they are not on the list of documents that we have provided you and I will get them for you later. I then asked her to let me understand what she was saying. She repeated it and I wrote it down. No other information was requested of Dr. Lesley by me. 15. Mr. Walker was not in the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices at the time that Dr. Lesley volunteered the information regarding the grant proposals. He was still in the hallways of ) 1 the building. 16. When I left the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices, I met Mr. Walker in the hallway and we went into the LRCPMSA offices again to see if Ms. Harris had arrived. Upon learning that Ms. Harris was not there, we began to leave the office. As were leaving the office, Ms. Gilliam came into the office and asked if she could help us. Mr. Walker said \"no\", and that ifhe needed help \"he would ask for it.\" He then offered to show her the items which he had in his hands which he obtained from the district's display tables and the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices. 17. Except for speaking to people, Mr. Walker initiated no further conversation with anyone in Dr. Lesley's offices or the IRC. As we exited the building, Mr. Walker asked me who the lady was corning into the building. I told him I thought it was Ms. Dillingham. He spoke to her and asked if she was Ms. Dillingham and she said \"no.\" We then left the premises of the IRC. 18. With respect to the events which occurred on August 16, 2001 at the offices ofMs. Jo Evelyn Elston, I am also familiar with the facts surrounding that encounter. 19. When we arrived at Ms. Elston's offices on August 16, 2001 , there was no secretary 4 -  in her reception area. In early June, 200 1, when I visited Ms. Elston's offices, there was no secretary present in her outer offices. 20. I was the first person to walk into Ms. Elston's office and as I did so, I said \"hello\" in order to gain the attention of Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts. 21 . As I entered the office of Ms. Elston, Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts were seated at a table at the back of her office. As I entered the office, both Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence got up from the table and greeted me and they subsequently greeted :tv.fr. Walker and JJ Ms. Caldwell who came into Ms. Elston's office behind me. Mr. Walker, Ms. Frances Caldwell and I were invited into the offices of Ms. Elston after I got Ms. Elston's attention with my \"hello.\" 22. After exchanging greetings, Ms. Elston exited the room and returned with several chairs in order for Mr. Walker, Ms. Caldwell and myself to be seated. 23 . Mr. Walker immediately indicated to Dr. Roberts that he was required to go through District attorneys in order to ask questions of District administrators. Mr. Walker indicated to Dr. Roberts his concerns regarding African American student enrollment in Advanced Placement (\"AP\") courses and that he (Dr. Roberts) should inquire of District officials including Ms. Elston regarding American African enrollment, recmitment, success and failure in AP courses. Mr. Walker asked Dr. Roberts to specifically inquire regarding the African American student failure rates in AP courses as a result of current district initiatives. Mr. Walker did not tell Dr. Roberts that \"all African American students in AP courses were flunking.\" 24. Mr. Walker did not ask Ms. Elston any questions. She volunteered information as Mr. Walker told Dr. Roberts what his concerns were regarding African American student 5 participation in AP courses. 2!. On Saturday, June 3 0, 2001, while on my way to lunch with 1vir. Walker, I phoned Mr. James Washington on my cellular telephone, as I have routinely telephoned him on numerous occasions at home, to advise him that it looks like we would not be having a cook-out at my house anytime soon because I would be working weekends as a result of Mr. Walker having filed objections to the District's motion for declaration of unitary status. Mr. Washington had previously suggested that I invite him over for a cook-out at my house one weekend. I also told ,, him that we wuld not discuss the case with him without going through district counsel. Mr. Walker asked me to allow him to say \"hello\" to Mr. Washington, I handed him the telephone and he did so. I heard him tell Mr. Washington that he was not to discuss matters involving the case without going through district attorneys. I did not hear what was being said by Mr. Washington. In addition, I did not hear Mr. Walker suggest to Mr. Washington that he testify that he feared for his job, if called to testify. 26. I have no personal knowledge regarding the allegations involving Dr. Don Stewart. I have prepared and read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me SSI N EXPIRES: 17 Zo0 I 6  SEP O 4 2001 IN TIIB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSiABIES W. McCORMACK, CL~- :-: WESTERN DIVISION E;':--------;L.:::- - -\"''' '' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RIEciE~ve n DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. g;. ~~ ~L# DEFENDAl~TS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS N.IRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP -6 2001 Offilfl l3t= IDGREG .m . ~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OFARKANSAS ) ~OUNTY OF (,J}lAJ)/( e ~ss. Comes affiant, John W. Walker, under oath, and states the following: 1. On August 23 , 2001 at approximately 5:55 p.m., I received a copy of \"Plainti.ff's Motion for Contempt\" wherein the LRSD sought to have me cited for contempt and renewed its earlier motion to have me cited for contempt. It did not, however, seek a show cause order. Despite there being no show cause order entered by the Court or sought by plaintiff, I respectfully request the Court to set this matter for evidentiary hearing and I submit the following statements as ifthere is an Order er;i.tered by the Court to show cause why I should not be cited for contempt. 2. The August 23, 2001 motion relates to events of that day and is supported by two -1- affidavits, one from 1'Is. Anita Gilliam and the other from her supervisor, Dr. Bonnie Lesley. The first motion, though renewed, is still without affidavit or evidentiary support. I wish to reply, however, under oath and do so as follows: 3. On August 20, 2001, I wrote Mr. Clay Fendley, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark and the co-counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, also of that firm, at least three letters and I spoke with    iV.fr. Fendley at least on one occasion for approximately twenty minutes. I attempted to call him a second time but was informed that he was unavailable for my call. 4.  The first letter, Exhibit A, addressed the issue of our request for information from school principals and I note that we offered twenty additional days to respond to that FOIA. I also riote that I wrote in that letter with respect to district officials whom we sought information from that \"ifwe seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form [ without depositions] or . . . by interrogatories.\" I received no response to this letter from Mr. Fendley. I then wrote Mr. Fendley requesting, \"a copy of Dr. [Bonnie] Lesley's vitae\" noting that I was addressing \"this request to her as well.\" See Exhibit B. At approximately 2:25 p.m., I informed Mr. Fendley that I would seek to obtain a copy of the 2001 budget document from the district, for possible use at the school bo~d meeting on August 23, 200 l, and I noted \"if you determine that I am not entitled to this information, would you kindly inform me ... \"Mr.Fendley did not respond to this letter either. See Exhibit C. 5. Not having heard from Mr. Fendley or Dr. Lesley on August 22, 2001, I wrote Dr. Lesley a two sentence letter. Exhibit D. I asked \"would you please provide me a -2- copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation.\" 1fr. Fendley was copied with the letter. I did not receive the requested fax response on August 22, 2001 from either N.fr. Fendley or Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Neither of them interposed an objection to my obtaining the information. 6. On the morning of August 23, 2001, shortly after 8:00 a.m., I and Joshua Intervenor  Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, went to the Instructional Resource Center \"IRC\" located at 30th and Pulaski Streets in Little Rock. We discussed obtaining information from Ms. Vanessa Cleaver's office and obtaining a copy of the vitae ofDr. Bonnie Lesley. I followed Ms. Springer into the IRC building by approximately five minutes. When I entered the building, Ms. Springer was seated in the hallway in front of Dr. Bonnie Lesley's office. We both went into the outer office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and I spoke with Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesley's secretary. The only conversation that took place in that office at that time concerned my request for a copy of the requested vitae. I did not see (\"lay eyes on\") nor talk (\"exchange words with\"), Dr. Bonnie Lesley that morning. Ms. Gilliam informed me that Ms. Gilliam had mailed Dr. Lesley's resume to me the day before. Her two page resume is attached as Exhibit E. Upon seeing that it was only two pages and that it only cited her educational background and work experience, I asked Ms. Gilliam if she had another one that was more comprehensive. My request for Dr. Lesley's vitae was made in order for me to be able to review some of her writings. I had no other way of being informed of her ideas regarding remediation which were being reflected in the policies she was submitting to the LRSD Board for approval. Her resume appeared to be different from those of other ,.., -.J- ) ') professional employees. Her e-mails reflected that she has written extensively and has had other experiences which equip her to be Director of Instruction. The resume that I was given did not appear to meet the District standards. Ms. Gilliam did not engage in any substantive conversation with me at that time or at any time. 7. I did not seek any information from Ms. Gilliam other than the resume ofDr. Lesley 8. -and a,ny documentation that Dr. Lesley intended to present to the school board later that evening. Ms. Gilliam did not respond to me or in my presence to this request. I received on August 22, 2001 an agenda from the LRSD for the next day's board meeting. On the agenda there were several policy proposals from Dr. Lesley: IV A with five pages of an administrative regulation IVA-R; proposed revision to administrative regulation IKEC-R3 ; Credit by Examination with five additional pages; program evaluation agenda for 2001-2002, three pages; weighted credit foruniversity studies courses at Hall High School, two pages; proposed revision to administrative regulation IKC-R: Grade Point Average and Rank in Class, six pages; and, a grant proposal - Teaching United States History, one page. 9. While I was in the office, I asked Ms. Gilliam ifthere was any additional information which was available which supported the enumerated items being submitted by the Instructional Division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda that day. I never received a response from Ms. Gilliam to my question. 10. Before I left Ms. Gilliam 's office, I picked up copies addressed to parents and guardians of\"standard's benchmarks\" for grades 1-8. I left Ms. Gilliam's office and walked down the hallways of the IR.C. There were public \"pass outs\" on the tables -4- ------ - - - ---------------------- - ~ which involved the district's schedule, the LRSD's Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement, the PRAXIS Series Tests at a Glance for approximately fourteen different programs, and several communications to parents. 11. Dr. Lesley has given an affidavit in support of the district's motion to cite me for contempt. Dr. Lesley indicates that she spoke with me personally. I make this 12.  determination because she speaks in terms of a \"they\" said which includes me. In paragraph four of her affidavit, she appears to indicate that I had a conversation with her. It is clear, however, from a full reading of her affidavit, that she neither spoke with me nor laid eyes upon me on the morning of August 23, 2001. I state that I never saw or spoke with Dr. Lesley on August 23, 2001. The most that can be said of my activity in Dr. Lesley's office was that upon being informed that the requested vitae had been mailed the day before, I asked Anita for another copy of what had allegedly been mailed; that upon being provided the copy, I asked if it was a complete copy; and I asked if there any other writings that supported the department's agenda items on the school board agenda of 6:00 p.m. that day I could have. 13 . When I returned to my office I wrote Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Monitor, a letter complaining about the district's response and asking her help: \"I am writing this letter to enlist your office's assistance in helping to ensure that the LRSD is fully responsive to citizens' requests for information. If the district will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks _to the district's general inclination.\" Exhibit F. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Lesley and to Mr. Chris Heller. 14. After the school board meeting on the evening of August 23, 2001, it appears that Dr. -5- J .!) 15. Lesley updated her vitae. Her letter dated August 23, 2001, Exhibit G, begins as follows: \"You came to the !SH IRC OD August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you OD Wednesday.\" It appears that the letter dated August 23, 2001, was written after that date. Today, August 27, 2001, I received Exhibit Fin original form from Dr. Lesley. She now  indicates that she has updated her curriculum vitae to a point where it is now 27 pages long and that in order for me to get it, I will have to pay the district $6.75. With respect to the proposals that were for discussion on the board agenda for August 23ni, she has informed me that to review the document and get a copy of it would cost $11 .00; for the Technology Challenged Grant Proposal, $4.50. I may then obtain the documents, apparently without going through l\\lJ.r. Heller and l\\lJ.r. Fendley by bringing a check for $22.25 to Ms. Gilliam. In Dr. Lesley's letter of August 23 rd , as well as in her affidavit, Dr. Lesley does not indicate that I spoke, or sought to speak, with her personally. She acknowledges that I only sought to obtain a document that was or could have been readily available on request to anyone, of which prior notice that I was seeking it was given to her counsel. 16. On August 17, 2001, the Court denied LRSD' s motion without prejudice to cite me for contempt. During the telephone conference, the Court indicated that it would be \"prudent\" to, and in fact, ordered me \"to go through, or at least tell the attorneys what [I was] doing.\" This would prevent misconstruction of my conduct. The Court's Order which was received by me in the morning mail on August 23rd is -6- slightly different from what was spoken during the telephone conference. The Court's Order which was intended to.clarify her previous Order \" . .. directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the LRSD when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case and to inform consel for the LRSD prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters that are not currently before the Court.\" 17. Exhibit A reflects that if we sought opinions from the district administrators we would do that by interviews or by interrogatories. 18. Exhibit B indicates that I informed and went through Mr. Fendley in order to obtain information from Dr. Lesley, i.e., her vitae. 19. Exhibit C reflects that I went through Mr. Fendley on August 20, 2001, in order to 20. obtain a budget document which was on the August 23 , 2001 agenda. Exhibit D reflects that, after informing and upon not receiving a response from !vfr. Fendley on the third day, I requested from Dr. Lesley a copy of her vitae by return fax. Mr. Fendley interposed no objection to this request. She did not reply. When it was not received by return fax as requested on August 22, 2001, I simply stopped by the IRC to pick it up. Nothing else happened other than that I requested from Anita Gilliam any information that her office had to support the policies to be presented in the public forum later that night and that Ms. Springer and I made a routine monitoring visit of the IRC. 21. For years, the school district has taken the position that it has provided us, in advance of school board meetings, the proposed policies or regulations and back-up information before they were presented to the school board. Dr. Lesley and Dr. -7- Carnine have previously indicated that it was their belief and purpose that I should have, and that the district would provide such information to me at least several weeks, before the proposals were presented to the school board for action. 22. The district's counsel were aware of this commitment. Moreover, the district's counsel were aware that I intended to appear at the school board meeting on the  evening on August 23rd . See Exhibit H. I wrote :tvir. Heller that day, August 23, 2001 , asking ifhe perceived the Court's Order as restricting any discussion between me and the board members later that day. See Exhibit H. 23. The LRSD filed a motion on August 16, 2001 seeking to cite me for contempt. It now renews that motion. In doing so, the district has failed to provide either affidavit of other evidentiary support of the allegations in the motion. The renewal of the motion does not make it legally sufficient to put me on notice of what it is that I am specifically charged with having done. I proceed, however, to respond by this affidavit to those allegations under penalty of perjury. There are three allegations stated in the first motion. I address them seriatim: a) To the allegation that I confronted Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston with allegations that \"all African American students in advanced placement (AP) courses were flunking,\" I deny that allegation. Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant recommended by the Joshua Intervenors, was in a meeting Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston at approximately 11 :30 a.m., August 16, 2001 . I was scheduled to meet with him during the day. I had previously written him and informed him that I \"would like to be involved in your meetings with Dr. Washington and Dr. Lesley.\" See Exhibit I. I was unable to meet with him -8- 'j lj during his meetings with either of those persons. When I caught up with him he was at Ms. Elston's office. Ms. Elston invited me and Ms. Springer into the office. A law clerk named Francis Caldwell, who accompanied us to the meeting, was also invited in. During the meeting, I informed Dr. Roberts that I was not to elicit information from any district officials and then I proceeded to tell him some of the concerns that  we had regarding the treatment of African American students that I wished for him to address with Ms. Elston and the other administrators as he sought to work with the school district. My conversations were primarily expressions of concern to Dr. Roberts regarding his role in relating to school administrators. I did discuss with him the treatment of African American students not only in advanced placement but in the district as well. At no time did Ms. Elston indicated that I interrupted any meeting and she appeared to welcome my discussions with Dr. Roberts. Ms. Elston and I have been personal friends since college, and we are neighbors. Dr. Roberts has provided a written statement regarding the alleged events. See Exhibit J. (The signed copy from Dr. Roberts is being submitted to the Court). b) To the allegation that I called Mr. James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman on\\ June 30, 2001, and suggested that \"Washington testify that he feared for his job ifhe told the truth,\" I deny having done that. Mr. Washington did not testify at the Court hearing that he feared for his job ifhe told the truth. Mr. Washington, however, has visited my office on scores of occasions in response to complaints that we have directed to him in his role as Ombudsperson. During several of those meetings he complained about his treatment by the district and that he did not feel that he had the -9- full support of Mr. Junious Babbs in the execution of his job duties. At court, as I recall his testimony, he confirmed that lack of full support. He indicated shortcomings with respect to his office space, staff and limitations upon his investigations, especially about complaints that emanated from Pulaski Heights :Middle School. Mr. Washington, I believe, says different things to different people at different times  depending upon his view of the advantage to be obtained by such expressions. c) To the allegation that on July 19, 2001 I attempted to intimidate Dr. Don Stewart by walking into a closed door meeting in his office, I deny that. I am not certain of where Dr. Don Stewart's office is located. I went into a room where he and Mr. Junious Babbs were present, which may have been his office, exchanged a few pleasantries and left. I do not recall either ofus being seated. Absolutely nothing took place where I sought to obtain information, verbal or written, from a school district official. I further suggest that any intimidation or intended intimidation ofDr. Don Stewart is impossible due, if for no other reason, to Dr. Stewart's high degree of self-confidence to say the least. I do not believe that he will testify, under oath, by recitation of any factual scenario, that I have ever sought to intimidate him. 24. With respect to both motions for contempt, I deny that I either have contempt for the Court or have acted in a manner contemptuous of any Court Order, Court Directive or Code of Professional Conduct. The contrary is true. 25 . The district acknowledges that as counsel for Joshua, I have a duty to engage in monitoring activity regarding class activity. The motion for contempt, I believe, is an -10- attempt to frustrate our monitoring. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me ~ay of~ , 2001. / ~)}1 {2 IJ-\u0026u MY CO,SSION EXPIRES: 17 /zc7,.13 I NefT YPUBLIC ........ ~ ,, l_. j . . \\ ~ , . .._..'.I.:..~.. .  ' ; -11- J JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1341","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School integration","School superintendents","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1341"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["78 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":15,"next_page":16,"prev_page":14,"total_pages":46,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":168,"total_count":544,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":313},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":35},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":14},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":3},{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":3},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":2},{"value":"Cobb Court Reporting","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Sixth Division","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":439},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":396},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":378},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":354},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":329},{"value":"School integration","hits":317},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":295},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":268},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":249},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":223},{"value":"Court records","hits":206}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1},{"value":"Lester, Bobby","hits":1},{"value":"Porter, Austin, Jr.","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":544},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":537},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":535},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":472},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Phillips County, 34.42829, -90.84802","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Jacksonville, 34.8662, -92.11015","hits":1},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Scott County, Waldron, 34.89843, -94.09076","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":537},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Missouri","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":50},{"value":"1995","hits":44},{"value":"1992","hits":41},{"value":"1996","hits":40},{"value":"1993","hits":38},{"value":"2001","hits":32},{"value":"2011","hits":31},{"value":"1997","hits":28},{"value":"2002","hits":24},{"value":"1991","hits":23},{"value":"1998","hits":22},{"value":"2012","hits":20},{"value":"2010","hits":16},{"value":"1999","hits":15},{"value":"2003","hits":15},{"value":"1989","hits":12},{"value":"2000","hits":12},{"value":"2004","hits":12},{"value":"2013","hits":12},{"value":"2007","hits":11},{"value":"2005","hits":10},{"value":"2006","hits":10},{"value":"2009","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":7},{"value":"1990","hits":7},{"value":"1984","hits":6},{"value":"2008","hits":6},{"value":"1986","hits":4},{"value":"1985","hits":3},{"value":"1987","hits":2},{"value":"1954","hits":1},{"value":"1983","hits":1},{"value":"2017","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1954","max":"2017","count":564,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"filing","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":544}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}